Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:18, 21 November 2008

Template:WP1.0

	Leonardo da Vinci is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Leonardo da Vinci has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept January 6, 2005 Featured article review Demoted April 12, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 8, 2005 Good article nominee Listed March 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 8, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept August 14, 2008 Peer review Reviewed This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005. Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Medieval Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Medieval philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Civil engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. he was nice

Template:FAOL

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

Birthday date

Da Vinci's birth date is April 15th of 1452, but in Florentine Time (which started the 'new day' at sunset.) By our reckoning he was born on the evening of April 14th ('three hours into the night' according to the biography).

Then we need to account for the difference between Julian Calendar (which was used at that time) and Gregorian Calendar which we use now. At 1452 the difference is 9 days, so this finally gives us April 23, 1452 as the birth data of Da Vinci that astrologers use - which is Taurus. http://holisticastrologer.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-is-leonardo-da-vinci-taurus-reader.html

Is this true? Anyone any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mysterious people

The category is for people about whom there is a mystery as to their identity, immediate origins, or life. A cursory glance at the article suggests da Vinci's identity, origins or life story were not mysterious. Am I missing something? Because otherwise, the man should be removed from the category. Best regards, Steve 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK! point taken.Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a new category, Dead People. Should be quite easy to fill it up. PiCo (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mysterious" category was added by ] (] · ]), who added it to dozens of random bio pages. Most have been reverted, and he has been warned. This category is not any more appropriate for da Vinci than it is for any other random historical (or living) person. I reverted it. Before restoring, please provide a detailed rationale on this talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Argyropoulos one of his teachers

Leonardo Da Vinci, in his Atlantic Codex (saved in the Ambrosiana Biblioteca or Abrosian Library), describes some scholars and scientists among whom he lived and socialised including the most known Byzantine academic of his time “Giovanni Argyropulo” (John Argyropoulos). Modern History researchers assumed that he attended his lectures. Reference:

• Short Biographical Lexicon of Byzantine Academics Immigrants to Western Europe, by Fotis Vassileiou,Barbara Saribalidou, 2007.
• Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind, by Charles Nicholl, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Book13 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now included the name John Argyropoulos, along with the other important Neo-Platonists in the section about Florence. Amandajm (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hovercraft, not helicopter

i have looked at the "helicopter" he invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. a helicopter uses the principle that air will always travel from a high pressure aria to low pressure area to fly. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Leonardo questions

Please leave a message on my talk page, by clicking "talk" after my name. Amandajm (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

L or V?

Hello,

Why is this article ordered on L. Intuitively I would put it at V, but every other sources put it at L. Why? Yann (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because his name is Leonardo. Da Vinci means he came from Vinci. A considerable number of Italian artists are known to history by their first names, even when, like Michelangelo who was minor nobility, they had a well established surname. When Dan Brown named his book "The Da Vinci Code", he was displaying a considerable degree of ignorance, for one pretending to know a lot about the subject.

Raphael, the other giant of the High Renaissance is also commonly known by his first name. During their lifetimes, all the artists would have been called by their first names or nicknames, and this should be maintained in the articles about them, unlike articles about modern people which use surnames, so that for example, Andrea del Sarto can to be shortened to Andrea rather than del Sarto. On the other hand, some artists are known almost always by their surname such as Ghiberti and Brunelleschi, or place name, such as Perugino (from Perugia).

Among the artists who are known by nicknames are Uccello, Masaccio, Masolino and il Sodoma (don't ask)

A large number of the 14th century painters are usually known by two names such as Taddeo Gaddi, Bernardo Daddi or a name and place name like Barna di Siena. In the case of Piero, in the late 14thc, he was identified as the illegitimate child of his mother and made her name famous as Piero della Francesca.

With Leonardo, despite his illegitimacy, his birth and baptism were proudly recorded by his grandfather, and his father named him as his son. Otherwise he may well have been Leonardo della Caterina. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious (& Political) Views

Can somebody add with references a section on his religious views to the main article? Was he devout? was he skeptical? Like many at that time, did he pay lip service? Seems difficult to imagine that someone who's interests extended as widely as his did, didn't have views on the nature of religion and politics. --Dmg46664 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About Leonardo's religious views: This is a matter that is almost entirely open to speculation. In his journals he occasionally made severe criticism of the church as an organisation, and in particular, monastic life. Other than that, he was silent. We know practically nothing about Leonardo's personal feelings on any subject.

Vasari indicates that Leonardo may have been sceptical about religious matters for most of his life, because he says that Leonardo, on his death bed, sent for a priest and learnt about the Christian faith. He was give the sacrament before his death. That is all we know.

Michelangelo, on the other hand, was a biblical scholar. It is my bbelief that the scheme for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is entirely Michelangelo's devising.

In the article on Leonardo, there is simply no room to go into speculative matters. The article is very long already. For that reason, there are three other articles: Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor, Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci and Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

The place to include the various theories about his religious beliefs is on the latter page, along with the speculation about his sexually and so on.

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality Tuscan?

Because Italy wasn't a nation at the time? And "Tuscany" was? This retroactivism is going to create some interesting situations. Goethe isn't German any more. Pericles isn't Greek. And as for Moses, well, he was born in Egypt, so I guess he's an Egyptian. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally ridiculous - he would have been regarded as Italian at the time, and should be now. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh!) I'm perfectly happy to call him Italian. Is this a quorum then? Amandajm (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen to make an issue of it, but it might be. Or just avoid adjectives altogether. I don't want to have to work out what prince all my early Germans lived under! Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Italians are happy to call him Italian, and they seem to be, then so am I. Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please! If you can find anything from the 15th century that uses the word Italy or Italian in anything but the broadest geographical sense, I'd love to see it. If Leonardo had an idea of Italian nationhood, it was almost as far ahead of reality as his flying machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please you! This has been discussed at three different places on this board. If you take the trouble to read all of them, you will find that the general concensus of major contributors to this page is that we feel that "Italian" is the best option. The discussions will also make it clear to you that we are none of us ignorant of whatever point you are trying to make. Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pericles and Goethe are incomparable examples to Leonardo and the Italianata. The Italianata is a product of the 19th century, prior to that every "Italian" was loyal to their city and not to Italy. The best description would have been "Florentine" however per WP:POLICY we're obliged to use the most common descriptor, which is probably Italian. That's the only reason this name should be used, and not because the contributors feel in a certain way. Miskin (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

Sometimes this article talks too much of others and not of Leonardo himself. Does anyone have any suggestions for this? Particularly the section on his influences needs some improvement. Some of the statements are vague, and I think that more examples could be given. --152.3.239.4 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just replying to this.

• The section on "Influences" is about Florence and the situation into which Leonardo moved, as a youth. It isn't about Leonardo's influence on others. It is this section, specifically, that talks about "others" and not Leonardo himself. To understand Leonardo, it is important to understand the artistic climate of Florence in the 1400s.
• Further down, there is a section dealing with Leonardo, Legend. The statements are direct quotations by authors over several centuries which show the esteem in which he was held, as his "legendary" status is unique among Renaissance artists.
• A sectionn dealing specifically with his influence on other painters would be a good addition.

Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Equine statue

I've changed "equestrian statue" to "equine statue", because the planned Sforza monument was that of an unmounted horse. Pannonius (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's mother

• "There is some evidence that Caterina may have been a slave from the Middle East, but many experts question this evidence."

There's an article in today's Guardian about new evidence supporting the claim that his mother was a slave, which in turn gives greater weight to the claim of Middle Eastern lineage. The latter part of the quoted text refers to the question of fingerprint reliability, whereas the Guardian article isn't focusing on that - perhaps it would be appropriate to add this to the quoted text to balance it out? G E Enn (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The new evidence seems to be pretty much the same as the evidence of 2001. I removed the line that said that there was doubt, I don't think it's necessary, as no-one has come forward with more proof to the contrary in 7 years.

Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's Arab heritage

Moved addition to first paragraph. The first paragraph attempts to briefly sum up his biography with known facts. It's not the right place to discuss whether something is "firmly proven". That is the sort of wording that goes in "talk page" discussions.

When Leonardo's origins are indeed "proven" then the first paragraph will simply state "the illegitimate son of Ser Piero.... and an Arabic slave, Caterina." It won't require the words "firmly proven".

The problem is this: it is not "firmly proven", even though it seems highly probable.

1. We don't know for sure whether the slave Caterina who is mentioned in documents in Vinnci was in fact Leonardo's mother.
2. The scientific report of the fingerprints does not appear to be available. We are reliant onn press reports.
3. The press reports confirm a likelihood, or probability. What we need to know is not just' the fact that the particular fingerpring occurs in Middle Eastern people, but whether or not it also occcurred in 15th century Italians. No-one has, as yet, produced that information.
4. "Arab" means "Arabic". Not all Middle Eastern people are Arabic. The statements claim "Middle Eastern" descent, not specifically "Arabic" descent.

This topic is interesting, but we have no idea how it impacted on his major fields of creativity, or if it had any impact at all. There is so much info on Leonardo that we have four Misplaced Pages pages. The best place for an in-depth look at the question of Leonardo's family background is on the page Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The notebooks

The notebooks (which you call journals, but I think notebooks is the more commonly used term) deserve their own article. Some of the questions raised here could be treated at length - such as why he didn't publish them in his own lifetime (answer: apparently he intended to, but never got around to it), and the role of Melzi (faithful ammenuensis or blundering idiot?). This is a job for Super-Amanda!PiCo (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not! No, I refuse! This is a job for Peekypoo! Amandajm (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll grow on you.PiCo (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do U Have Questions?

Is Leanrado Left handed?-angle

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.223.148 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

thats cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are all the Ranaissance people.((please make a list under)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian nationality

I don't quite understand based on what this article can claim that Leonardo's nationality was Italian. Stating that Leonardo was born in Italy might be correct even though the country Italy didn't exist at the time, since it's also a geographical turn. However, he most certainly wasn't an Italian national. Imposing contemporary nationalities on people who lived in other states is just plain falsification. If in the future Italy would be part of another country (let's say San Marino to emphasis the hypotetical question) would Leonardo then be of Sammarinese nationality? And if for some reason Italy would become part of the US 200 years from now, would Leonardo then be American? JdeJ (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that L. was of Italian nationality; it says he was Italian. Italian by culture, by language, by geography (Italy did exist as a geographical expression at the time, to rephrase Bismark). PiCo (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Painting mistake

Unless I am mastaken, under the paintings section, the painting The Virgin Of the Rocks appears twice. could someone please correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.43 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a mistake. It is explained. They are two paintings in two different galleries. Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance artists were fond of repeating their successes - you do a painting for client A, his good friend B sees it and asks for a copy, and so on and on. Works by Caravaggio are currently popping out of unexplored attics all over the place, all original, all nearly identical.PiCo (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which Sangallo?

From the text (under "Florence—Leonardo's artistic and social background")

Like the two contemporary architects, Bramante and Sangallo, Leonardo experimented with designs for centrally-planned churches, a number of which appear in his journals, as both plans and views, although none was ever realise

The link for "Sangallo" leads to a disambiguity page and it is not clear which Sangallo is meant: Giuliano da Sangallo (c. 1443 – 1516) or Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (c. 1453 – December 27, 1534); both were architects active during the Renaissance. Anrie 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The latter is probably the more relevant.Amandajm (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted the lead image

The reason that the caption states that we do not know for sure if the drawing is a self-portrait is because that is the fact. It is also a fact that it is almost universally accepted as such. The oil painting dating from the 16th century may or may not be Leonardo, regardless of the fact that it has his name on it in large letters. If it is Leonardo, then it probably confirms that the drawing is also Leonardo. If the drawing is in fact Leonardo, then it is a superb drawing, by a greater master (the man himself) than the author of the painted portrait. Whichever way you look at it, the drawing is a better lead image than the painting. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's birthplace

because the page is rather crowded, I'm moving it to the Leonardo da Vinci's personal life pag. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ease of accessibility

A clean list of his artworks would be easily accessed if it were more easily accessible. Nandor1 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Come again? Ham 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) PS: This might be what you're looking for.

PROPOSAL- split section List of paintings to List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci

My rationale for making this suggestion is as follows. Please add your comments.

• The existing article is a huge 89kB, so it would benefit from the removal of some non-essential content
• Parts of the list are redundant to the "Painting" section.
• The list adds excessive weight to Leonardo's artistry. We should either add new sections such as "List of inventions", or remove the "List of paintings" section. Given the length of the article, the latter seems preferable.
• If split from the main article, the list could be expanded into nice table format, including more information, and images for each item. Sounds like a future Featured List candidate to me!

Papa November (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. unless anyone vehemently objects. now the box has been well editted, this is a good way to go. Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Split completed. If anyone objects, we can easily restore the split content. Take a look at List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci - it needs a some work, including expansion of the lead section, and addition of the missing details in the latter sections, but it's reasonably complete otherwise. It would be nice if we could get it featured. Papa November (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I have a suggestion: http://publicliterature.org/books/notebooks_of_leonardo_da_vinci/xaa.php

This offers the online text and PDF of the Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci.

76.100.228.241 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you look at the bottom of the article, there is already a link to Richter's translation.. Amandajm (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo as a Pederast

Leonardo's most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi, Melzi writing that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)

This was the previous version. Changed by Haiduc to the following:

Leonardo's most intimate relationships appear to have been with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi wrote that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. According to Giulio Mancini, Da Vinci "made such carefully observed anatomical studies of the handsome young Signor Francesco Melzi." (REF Elizabeth Abbott, A history of celibacy: Experiments Through the Ages, p.34 END REF) Salai was also the model for an eroticized John the Baptist, and of him it was said at the time that he was kept by Leonardo as his Ganymede.(REF Robert Aldrich, Garry Wotherspoon, Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, p.265 END REF) It has been asserted since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's assumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)

Haiduc asks me to explain why I deleted the info on the grounds that it was "speculation".

Whether or not Leonardo's relationships with Melzi and Salai were of an erotic nature appears to have been first speculated in writing by Giulio Mancini who was born 40 years after Leonardo's death. His work is a sexual fantasy.

As for Leonardo making detailed anatomical studies of a young man.... well what the heck does one expect an artist to do. As an artist, I have a stack of such "detailed anatomical studies" of young people both male and female with whom I have absolutely no erotic association whatsoever. Who was the contemporary who said that Salai was Leonardo's Ganemede?

Haiduc continually pushes a case for Leonardo being a pederast. The actual evidence for it is slight. If he ever drew or painted a boy who was younger than 18 years old, in any guise whatsoever, (except babyhood) then all the evidence has disapppeared. There remain a couple of erotic drawings of a Salai as a young man, but whether they reflect Leonardo's personal interest, or rather Salai's own sexual behaviour is uncertain.

Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My only concern here is to try somehow to reduce the length of the article, and improve its style. The material about his social life is covered in detail in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, and it's not necessary here. However, I also think that there's a lot of very flowery description here, which can be made much more succinct. A lot of Vasari's descriptions seem more like fanciful fables about Leonardo than accurate historical accounts, and I'm not sure that they are entirely appropriate for the biography section. The "Leonardo the Legend" section would seem like a better place. Also, the amount of peripheral material dwarfs the account of Leonardo in many places - I agree that some context is necessary, but do we really need so much detail about work by other artists, the Italian Wars and Italian diplomacy to understand Leonardo fully? Per WP:LENGTH, the current 80kB size is really pushing the limits, and we can improve readability significantly by cutting down on superfluous information and redundancy. Papa November (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to reduce the length of the article, the worst place to begin would be with what is most central to the artist, namely his passion. The great man himself has said that When the lover is united with his beloved he is at peace, and has placed love at the center of his creative genius.

As for labeling Leonardo's passion for young men "speculation," I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. If we were to come up with novel theories about George Washington or George Bush, and put forward suggestions that they were (are) pederasts, we would be speculating. In Leonardo's case we have the words of his beloved - I am sure I do not have to repeat or translate them for you here. Melzi himself tells us Leonardo was in love with him. We also have the accounts and comments of his contemporaries, and countless other scholars since. So let's put the "speculation" cant aside and stop beating around the bush about his very well known and obvious love of youths. Haiduc (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, Melzi's comments about Leonardo's feelings appear to be fairly brief and not necessarily indicative of a physical relationship. Leonardo wrote little about his personal feelings. That he placed "love at the centre of his creative genius" seems highly speculative.

You have said that "accounts and comments of his contemporaries" indicate the nature of his relationship with the two young men. Which contemporaries?

The particular emphasis that your previous writing on this topic took was that his relationships were of a specifically pederast nature. I know that this was written about in fairly lurid detail by someone who wasn't born until many years after Leonardo's death. However, it seems that the only solid evidence about his sexuality concerned a change of sodomy when he was about 20 with a young man of 18. He was aquitted. This is document, and referred to in the article as one of the few dated references to Leonardo during this part of his life. The reasons for his aquittal have been subject to speculation, of course, with suggestions that he was cleared after his father exchanged a sum of money.

I think that the paragraph as it stood previously is quite sufficient as it cites Melzi's comments for anyone to interpret them as they chose. It mentions "presumed homosexuality" and the homoerotic nature of the John the Baptist and a couple of drawings. I really don't think that any further elaboration in this article is necessary, given that there is another article about his personal life. Amandajm (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Amanda, I am sorry that you find sex lurid, that probably explains why you are so determined to keep it out of the picture. As for the rest of your comments, I am afraid you're severely mistaken on several counts, all of them of crucial importance.

First, your "rejection" of Melzi's comments is patently absurd. "Fairly brief?!" How long a treatise do you want the man to make out of a simple "He loved me." As it so happens, he did not say just that, but made an emphatic statement that Leonardo loved him with a burning love with all his heart and soul. "Fairly brief," indeed!

Then you insist that Melzi's comments are "not indicative of a physical relationship." So what? You do not need a physical connection to have a pederastic relationship. All you need is love, as some musical group famously said.

Then you get the age of the boy whore wrong: Jacopo was seventeen, not eighteen, when Leonardo and the others were busted.

A more critical fatal flaw in your argument is your contention that That he placed "love at the centre of his creative genius" seems highly speculative. But Leonardo's words are clear:

The lover is moved by the thing he loves. As do the senses with their object, they bond together and form one whole. The work of art is the first thing to be born from this union. If the thing which he loves is base, the lover debases himself. When the thing to which he joins himself is suitable to the person who so unites himself, the result is one of delight, pleasure and peace. When the lover is united with the beloved he is at peace.

While I agree with you that the bulk of this discussion belongs in the article on his personal life, I do not agree with the present formulation of the material. It is a misrepresentation of the facts, and reads like an equivocal whitewash. Leonardo is widely believed to have been exclusively homosexual, and his two principal lovers were the two boys he loved from adolescence on. "Study, analysis and speculation" and "most intimate relationships were perhaps" are officious fumblings that do not belong here. Haiduc (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural blindness and historical deafness:

1. Plato's Phaedrus is about a male lover, but the medieval church interpreted its "αγάπη" as "Platonic love" and an ideal. This interpretation goes to the 14th century.
2. In the renaissance, it is conventional for men to speak of love and loving one another and intend "agape." This is the post-erotic and trans-erotic love that they have copied from Plato, but note that it is unspeakable and unthinkable that it would be sexually active.
3. Therefore, speaking of how one was the "beloved" of Leonardo would be nearly a cliche. It would most emphatically not indicate that the two were sexually involved.

So, what we have is a very commonplace literature of male "love" in the Renaissance. You can find it in Shakespeare and in Jonson. You can find it all over the place. None of this implies sexual relations. The cultural tradition was to read "agape" as a non-sexual love that was most likely to occur between members of the same sex, and it was so wonderful because there could be no doubt that it was not sexual.

The "erotic" boy is part of Humanism in general. All forms were done beautiful. Leonardo did some very sexy women: does that prove that he was massively heterosexual? No? If not, then males would not demonstrate anything, either. Leonardo was ... get this... not a realist, and certainly not a Romantic, painter. Isn't that mind blowing? Well, he was a Humanist in the Renaissance, and he paints according to his philosophy and goals. A man who painted the patron with warts would be in trouble (at least for a while).

Another lesson, to be learned both from Michel Foucault and Lawrence Stone and, well, everyone else, is that "homosexual" does not exist until the 19th century. The idea of a person who goes about loving the same sex and perforce having sexual involvement with members of the same sex is simply non-existent. Artists of all sorts played with what we now think is homoeroticism, but they were not homosexual.

"Pederast" is a term of law, not nature. To try to label this person and that a "pederast" is foolish and dishonest. It is either an attempt to convict these people, posthumously, of a crime or an attempt to say that the crime should be allowed. Both impulses are shabby. Bad, bad. Geogre (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pederast" in academia has nothing to do with law, and that is the sense it is used in Misplaced Pages since this is not an encyclopedia of legal terminology. Strict constructionist views of homosexuality were all the rage a generation or two ago, now they are road kill, together with Foucault. More to the point, Leonardo is recognized as homosexual by the great majority of gay history scholars, if not all. That is what matters here. Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You've referenced this "academic definition" of pederast several times, but I have not yet seen the citation. Who exactly are you claiming defines a pederast as "anyone who has any sort of relationship, from platonic to sexual, with a young man?" Specific citations would be most helpful. Nandesuka (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one instance, off the top of my head. Haiduc (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You characterized the definition as "academic." While the wiki-like online encyclopedia you cite is interesting, if that qualified as "academic", then I am Marie of Roumania. Got anything a little more established? Say, a peer-reviewed article or two? Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your majesty, if you look again you will notice that the article was written by Vern L. Bullough. If he is not an academic, then I am Queen Victoria. Haiduc (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vern Bullough is certainly an academic. And this little essay is most assuredly not an academic article. Bullough is an acknowledged expert on modern sexuality, but this article seems singularly ignorant about antiquity, and is spectacularly dismissive of the actual experts in Athenian culture who aren't as given to leaping to conclusions without any reasonable evidence. "Many scholars who acknowledge the existence of Greek pederasty are unwilling to look upon it as involving sexual activity. Some couples undoubtedly limited their physical contact to the gymnasia--wrestling, reclining together on couches, but not going beyond kissing and fondling. Some presumably ejaculated between the thighs or buttocks of the boys, yet others, perhaps most, penetrated their lover anally. Such activities appear on vase or other paintings."

In any event, with sources like these, I look forward to your next contribution, List of Japanese women who had cunnilingus with octopi. After all, such activities appear on paintings. Nandesuka (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. Jacopo was 17 not 18. Leonardo was 21 or 22.
• When Leonardo writes of love in relation to the arts, he is not necessarily writing of passion for a person. A musician might express fervent love for his violin. Leonardo appears to have had many loves- anatomy, landscape, light and shadow, botany etc. Amandajm (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Andre Gide, who obviously thought otherwise. Forgive me, but I will take my analysis of Leonardo from him before I take it from you. Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Andre Gide's qualification for analyzing Leonardo's life is the same as that of Dan Brown. If you prefer novelists and essayists as your sources, that might be fun, but it's not sound. I love Fra Lippo Lippi, by Robert Browning, too, but it's not a biography of a painter. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Verrocchio

Is there an exact date for when Leonardo was apprenticed to Verrocchio? Every web page or book I look at shows a different year from 1464 to 1469 and I just want to make sure this is right. 74.232.16.224 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact date of Leonardo's apprenticeship is unknown. 1464 is almost certainly too early a date. Normal practice was to apprentice the boy at 14, having completed his formal education at 13. Thus, the year 1466 is presumed by some writers. It is though by some that the family moved to Florence in 165-66 after the death of Ser Piero's first wife. It is known that Ser Piero's father dies in 1468, aged 92. In the following year Piero and his brother Francesco bought a house near the Bargello in Florence, and lived there with their respective wives. Some writers presume that Leonardo entered Verrocchio's studio at this date, when the whole family shifted to Florence.

However, the facts are not certain because Ser Piero appears to have worked between Vinci and Florence, and probably rented a house in Florence for some years before making it his permanent home. 16 years old was rather a late age to commence an apprenticeship. However, I think that the later date may be the more likely one. A reasons for thinking this (this is strictly OR) is that Leonardo remained an "outsider" with the art fraternity in Florence, even though they were tolerant of other talented incomers eg Perugino.

Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

re Maloseri's edits

The Leonardo article has been relatively stable for a long time. This indicates that the majority of editors who are interested in it are satisfied with it.

As I have pointed out to you above, the subject of Leonardo's relationships is a fairly delicate one that has brought about a great deal of discussion and argument. This had calmed down.

With regards to your edits, they have been reversed because:

• "Companion" is a term used for a young person or servant who travels with and assists an older person. Melzi was Leonardo's "companion" in his old age. This is correct English. It means something different to "close friend". It does not mean "homosexual partner".
• The beauty of Salai is not a digression. It is almost certainly the reason why Leonardo took the urchin home. He painted those ringlets on his angels.
• The later description links to the drawings. Salai's face appears many times, but is not always labelled as Salai.
• You deleted the reference to several of Leonardo's pictures. That was not appropriate.
• You deleted a citation to a written source. That was not appropriate either.

Amandajm (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at your edits to the other website (Leonardo da Vinci's personal life). Changing the word "relationship" to "friendship" is completely inappropriate. Leonardo had a "relationship" with the boy Salai. It was a "master/pupil" relationship. This much is certain. It may have been a "father/son" relationship. It may have been a pederast relationship. But one thing is absolutely certain. It was not a "friendship" in any normal sense of the word "friendship" which implies an equal and giving relationship.

Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "associate" is not a suitable translation for "companion" either. Amandajm (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Foetus

Isn't it Fetus? it says Foetus in the subtitle for the image on the left in the 'Scientist' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.255.79 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Foetus" is correct. However, in non-scientific literature it is often written as "fetus". This is probably more usual in the USA than in the UK. This article is written in English English. Amandajm (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Length, and style

I've mentioned my concerns previously about the article, and I'd like to see whether we can agree on a way forward. To reiterate: firstly, the article is huge. Amandajm suggested that we could split the painting section into separate article, and leave a very condensed form of the section here. I think this is a great idea, and if there are no objections, we could make a start quite soon. Secondly, a lot of the prose seems to be written in a "flowery" style that may not be quite formal enough for an encyclopedia. I think the article would benefit from stripping some of the text down to nice, succinct descriptions. There is some excellent advice for reducing redundancy here. Any thoughts/suggestions? Papa November (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Split

Unless there are immediate objections, I'll do it, having authored that section. The article will come down a great deal in length, as a result. Concerning the language:

• this is essentially an art article, and as such requires a style of prose that is a little different to a scientific article, for example. Because of the nature of the subject matter, art articles are always more descriptive.
• Those parts of the biography which are drawn from Vasari must stick fairly close to his wording, in order maintain any sense of accuracy and not indicate things which are not necessarily true.
• You, Papa November, have made a few edits in the interests of brevity that have put innacuracies into the article.

eg- The article stated that Lorenzo sent Leonardo to Milan to secure peace with Ludovoco. You made a change that stated that in a given year Leonardo secured peace with Milan. This was an inaccurate description of what happened, because you removed the nuances. The intention of Lorenzo Medici, according to Vasari, was to secure peace. To state it in bald political terms, as if Leonardo had gone north and got a contract signed between the cities is not accurate.

It is for this sort of reason that it is better not to fiddle with the "flowery language". It has been written with great care in order that errors of that type are not introduced. Believe me, it is very much easier to get it wrong than to get it right.

Amandajm (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Style

OK, good news about the split. I've created this subsection so we can discuss the style separately. I agree that my abbreviated form of the section went too far, and I should emphasise that I'm not an expert on this subject. However, improvements can still be made here. I don't propose that the article should be written in the same way as a scientific article, but there are several examples of existing featured articles in the renaissance arts, which use a direct and succinct style without sounding clinical or dry:

• Lisa del Giocondo
• Catherine de' Medici's building projects
• Dürer's Rhinoceros
• El Greco
• The Garden of Earthly Delights

Once the split has been completed, we can go to another round of peer review and then hopefully back to FAC. Papa November (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

response

Of these featured articles, some are monographs on individual works, one a simple biography on a life with only one significant event in it, one is a more extensive but straight forward biography, the last is a description of a number of works, with some relevant biographical details. None of these articles resembles the Leonardo page in any way. The enormous diversity of Leonardo's interests and skills, the amount of speculation about him, the amount of influence that he had on later artists, puts him in a position which would be unique among artists, were it not for Michelangelo, sculptor, painter, architect and poet...(and unlike Leonardo, supremely successful in every such activity that he attempted).

If you, Papa November, had any understanding of how difficult it is to present a balanced and accurate account, then you would be much more cautious in suggesting that something that has been laboured over as much as this article has, should be chopped up.

A little history: It went up for FA some time ago. The reason that it was passed over was as follows:

• I rashly put up several articles at the same time.
• Raoul and several other editors addressed their focus to one of the articles which soon went through to FA.
• Meanwhile, while tidying up that article, I also did almost everything that was recommended by the critical editors to the Leonardo article.
• It had just got to the point when the work was finished, and it simply timed out.

I find your current one-man campaign to improve the article a bit worrying! One of your initial suggestions was that we remove the biographical stuff that draws on Vasari!? While I don't want to seem horribly rude, if you don't understand the significance of Vasari's contribution to art history, then you ought not be buying into Renaissance articles.

Concerning the present article:

I have just reread the biographical section. It is about as succinct as it can be, without introducing possible errors. It has been worked over by a couple of publised art writers, by a copyeditor and a review team. Every time a fact is queried, it is immediately looked into and corrections made if necessary.

Concerning the articles that you have listed

I'd like to point out to you that some of the articles that you describe as "succinct" are far from it.

• There is a statement made in the first paragraph of the El Greco article about his "phantasmagorical" colours which ought only be made in parenthesis.

• re Lisa del Giocondo. It makes a great number of assumptions which, once again, are only permissible if the source is properly cited. It draws conclusions all over the place, without saying where the conclusions are coming from. It makes a bald contradiction that she is not in mourning, even though a number of scholars state that she is. In a circumstance like that, the wiki editor must state both opinions and cite the sources of both. It is most definitely not an FA article at this point in time. If I had known it was up for FA I would have "fact tagged" it all over the place, and demanded a proper acknowledgement for the woman who did the hours of tedious work that confirmed who the Mona Lisa really is.

• re Garden of Earthly Delights, it became a much better article after I reworked its introduction.

• re Durer's rhino, it contains inaccuracies of expression that are the sort of mistakes that writers without an art background make very easily. It says in the first couple of sentences that Durer based his woodcut on an unknown artist's "brief sketch". This cannot possibly be true. For Durer to create an image that was so accurate in its general form, and so detailed (albeit the details are misinterpreted) then the drawing from which Durer took his could not possible have been a "brief sketch". It must have been a very detailed drawing and very accurate in its form.

As an art historian, my response to you for pointing out these FA articles to me is to go around the articles, correcting and rewriting those parts of them which are not written in appropriately art-historical terms.

Re the split, it would not be a good idea to do that, just at the present moment. Besides, we need other editors to consider wheteher it ought to happen or not.

Amandajm (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by Papa November

I accept that the style will be somewhat different between topics of the encyclopedia. However, this article reads more like an art history essay than an encyclopaedia article in places. As a non-expert, I do not feel like I have been presented with a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Although there is a lot of factual content here, it's often obscured by superfluous information about other events of the Renaissance, which I could find out about by following links. Frankly, I think the article could be cut significantly, without losing any factual information. There are several problems with peacock terms and weasel words, which add nothing to the verifiability of the article.

There are also several problematic statements like

According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master's that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again. This is probably an exaggeration.

"This is probably an exaggeration"... says who? If references can show that Vasari was probably exaggerating, then it means that undue weight is being put on a statement which is regarded as being inaccurate. If the claim of exaggeration is someone's original research then it must be removed.

I should also point out that my (presumably misplaced) concerns about Vasari's reliability were almost entirely due to every reference being in the general form "according to Vasari, <insert exaggerated claim>". This simply makes him seem unbelievable. If it's still regarded as fact today, condense it to the factual parts and remove the exaggeration, citing Vasari. If not, then it's only useful as an illustration of the folklore about Leonardo's legendary status.

These are the sort of issues which I believe need addressing. I think I'll look for some neutral third opinions on this, so we can find a way forward. Papa November (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear you're looking at this from the wrong angle, PN. Vasari isn't invoked throughout the article because he's still seen as an authoritative source on Leonardo's life; in fact if you replaced every dubious statement by him with what's "still regarded as fact today" you'd be left with no Vasari in the article. He still looms large in art history because he was the first biographer of Leonardo and numerous other Italian Renaissance artists – and however shaky they are, the Lives are the starting point for all the following scholarship. So his versions of events are worth mentioning as primary sources, even if they're only there to be debunked. To me including Vasari seems the encyclopaedic approach.

Could you give some examples of "peacock terms" please? Ham 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about Vasari as a primary source. However, according to WP:PRIMARY, All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. "This is probably an exaggeration" in the excerpt above is therefore not acceptable. Either a secondary source must be found showing that the quotation is an exaggeration, or the quotation should be removed to avoid misleading the reader with an exaggerated claim.

A few peacock phrases:

• He is widely (peacock) considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps(original research?) the most diversely talented person ever to have lived. I know this is reflecting historical opinion, and I know that references have been provided, but can't we make it more objective? The word "widely" is unnecessary when a string of references is provided. Why the "perhaps"? He either has or hasn't been described as the most diversely talented person. What's wrong with something like "He has been described as both one of the greatest painters and the most diversely talented person ever to have lived."... now it's a strong, verifiable statement without any original research or meaningless peacock terms.
• the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper occupy unique positions as the most famous, most reproduced and most parodied portrait and religious painting of all time, their fame approached only by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam.. As a superlative, the "most famous" of anything has to occupy a unique position by definition... the phrase can be replaced by "are". It's not clear why Michelangelo's work needs to be mentioned. Does it have some special significance as a benchmark for fame in art? Can you make it clearer to the reader who wants only to learn about Leonardo, why they're suddenly reading about a different artist?
• "Nevertheless, these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, comprise a contribution to later generations of artists only rivalled by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo." Once again, why are we talking about Michaelangelo? To say that they are "only rivalled" is pretty rich without a citation
• "As an engineer, Leonardo's ideas were vastly ahead of his time." Again, I think this is too much without a reference. How is it possible to judge that something is ahead of its time? As an engineer myself, I find this terribly clichéed. The phrase "Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime" is much more powerful, and presents some a tangible fact. I'd suggest merging the two to get something like. "Leonardo invented many advanced systems which would only be realised hundreds of years later."

Other problematic statements are as follows:

• Within his own lifetime his extraordinary powers of invention, his "outstanding physical beauty", "infinite grace", "great strength and generosity", "regal spirit and tremendous breadth of mind" as described by Vasari attracted the curiosity of others.: Did Vasari actually say that these things attracted the curiosity of others (quote him directly), is it supported by secondary sources (cite them) or is that the interpretation of the Misplaced Pages author? (remove it)
• although Vasari claims that Leonardo "taught him a great deal about painting", his work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo's pupils such as Marco d'Oggione and Boltraffio. "generally considered" isn't good enough. Reliable secondary sources are needed
• "Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive,". Why "perhaps"? The footnote says that 15 artworks are ascribed to him, so the perhaps is never qualified. Why not state something like "at least fifteen...", or "Fifteen extant paintings are attributed to Leonardo"? Much more positive, and it's stripped out the original research.

There are many more examples throughout the article, which I think need attention. Papa November (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"A rose is a rose is a rose, Rose"

A very dear friend of mine named Phyllis has asked me to tell her exactly why Leonardo is so famous an artist. What exactly, she wants to know, did he do? So I came to Misplaced Pages as the place to find out stuff like this. Now Phyllis has a saying, to the effect that a rose is always and only a rose - actually, her phrase is that a rose is a rose, Rose. (She has a sister named Rose). And she wants to know why a rose by Leo is better than a rose by anyone else. And I thought I'd find the answer here, but I have to report, sadly, that I can't. Instead, I read that St Jerome in the Wilderness is unusual because "Jerome...occupies the middle of the picture". I explained this to Phyllis, but she couldn't see why having Jerry in the middle was more unusual than having him at the top or bottom. So I decided to go for the big one, the Mona Lisa. It's the smile, I told Phyllis, (having read up in Wiki), it's elusive, it's mysterious (these are the words I read on Wiki), and its exact nature cannot be determined. So what's she smiling at? asked Phyllis. I declined to answer. A smile, I replied, is a smile, is a smile, except when it's on Mona's mug, in which case it's a triumph of the greatest of all artists. Phyllis looked a bit thoughtful at that, and said something about her other sister, whose name is Gertrude, and who often has tea with Rose. I could feel I was losing her. Sfumato! I cried. It's all in the smoke corners! So Leonardo is famous for smoky corners? asked Phyllis? Well, yes, I read it here on Wiki, I said. Did anyone else do smoke, says Phyllis? Um, well, maybe, Wiki doesn't say, I said. But Leonardo was famous for it. Phyllis looked thoughtful. Famous for painting smoky corners to eyes and mouths, for realistic but cryptic smiles, and for innovative solutions to composition? You've got it! I cried. And Phyllis looked much happier. She says she's going to go tell Gertrude and Rose. They've been asking, too. PiCo (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So PiCo, state your business! Are you telling me that you want me to expand the stuff on Leo's paintings or what? I suggest you take a trip over to little Leo and his private life. Check out what's going on on that page and give them a few blasts of your foghorn. Amandajm (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have any idea what I'm talking about. Too allusive. What I mean is, we need to pitch the article to people like Phyllis - curious but totally uninformed, and wanting to be told, in simple language, just why L is so famous. What exactly makes his portraits better than those of his immediate predecessors. Phyllis will be willing to grant you that L can paint a good likeness, better than Picasso anyway (at least he puts the nose in the right place), but why all the fuss? I'll go annoy people on Private Lives if you think I should. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's horse

{{editsemiprotected}}

See Misplaced Pages article on Frederik Meijer Gardens, section on "Sculpture". The Gardens commissioned a completed version of Leonardo's horse, now on display. I've seen it; it's not exactly beautiful it's much more stunning than that. The Gardens ... well, I won't retype all the information about the Horse which you can find easily yourself and probably more accurately than any summary I would do. 75.105.128.36 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Beth Clemensen bethclem@dishmail.net

editsemiprotected declined: no clear edit specified. See the instructions on {{editsemiprotected}}. —EncMstr (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Half Middle Eastern

By any chance was he the son of an Arab slave women? LOTRrules 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a chance that he was. This information is included in the section about his early life, and is referemced, if you want to know why this is considered a possibility. It has been shown that he had a particular pattern on one of his fingerprints that is quite common in people of Middle Eastern Descent. At this point in time, it has been impossible for me to discover whether, or how frequently this same pattern may have occurred in people from Tuscany in the 1400s. So there is no way to assess the information.

However, research by the head of the Vinci Museum indicates that Leonardo's father had a Middle Eastern slave called Caterina, around the time that Leonardo was born.

This article is already very long, so it is not the place to go into the various research and articles about any one particular aspect of Leonardo. Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That does explain something. But is there any research on where his mother came from? I quantify that Baghdad was where his mother was sold, after all slave markets had been there for a while. So possibly he could have been an Iraqi? Or Lebanese, maybe? Christians are quite common in Lebanon... Lord of Moria _Talk 11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no. We don't know where his mother came from. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate whether she was sold in Baghdad. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that his mother was Iraqi or Lebanese, or anything else other than "Arabic" which covers a broad swathe and includes the possibility that she may have come from North Africa or Spain. What you are saying is all speculation.

The fact that there are many Christians in Lebanon is irrelevant. We don't know that Leonardo's mother was Christian. The fact that she was called Caterina is not an indication of her religion. That name was often given to Middle Eastern slave women in Tuscany. Living in Italy at that time, she would have been expected to learn about and practise Christianity, because, as a slave, she belonged to a Christian family.

Leonardo's writings do not indicate that he had a strong Christian faith. He didn't write about religious matters. Even though many of his pictures have a religious subject, you cannot presume that he had deep religious feelings. He painted what he was paid to paint. In the late 1400s most paintings were either religious pictures, or portraits. Occasionally a very rich family might pay an artist to paint something from mythology. Or a city council might commission a history painting. But most paintings of that date are small pictures of the Madonna and Child.

Another possibility is that Caterina was not purchased as a slave by Piero da Vinci. She may have been born of a slave mother and had an Italian father. One of the things that makes me of this opinion is that Piero did not have her in his house working in the capacity of a slave. She was living as a free person, in her own home on Piero's land, and was presumably supported by Piero until she married. The indication that she was a "slave" only comes from the documentation that Piero owned a Middle Easterm slave. She is more usually referred to as a "peasant", so perhaps her father was a Tuscan peasant. Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pacioli's book title

It is "De divina proportione", not "Divina proportione". See "Luca Pacioli" article. Ribadeo (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK! will fix. Amandajm (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

leonardo da vinci...

how did leonardo da vinci influence others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.174.193 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't dealt with very well in the article! Leonardo's main influence was in painting. He had quite a few pupils and assistants. Boltraffio was the one who became most famous. Other artists who were alive at the same time but not his pupils were also greatly influenced by him. The most famous was Raphael. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also notrworthy that Leonardo's styler became 0bscelete almost immediately - the future belonged to Mick and Mannerism. Only with the arrival of the divine Caravaggio was painting restored to her rightful former beauty. (A little personal POV there). PiCo (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Alright, so I have to do a project on Leonardo da Vinci for school. Could someone please post some more valuable, if you know what I mean, information that I could use? Post this information on my talk page please.

Sincerely, LanceWowlgg LanceWowlgg (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC) poop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.87.202 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The very best information anyone could possibly give you would be the whereabouts of the school library. PiCo (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo was a vegetarian for ethical reasons

The evidence that Leonardo was a vegetarian for ethical reasons is solid. If that is the case, this information is certainly an important aspect of his life, and should be included in the Leonardo da Vinci article. The following link includes a) a reference to Leonardo as a vegetarian by a contemporary source, b) information that the two major compilers of Leonardo's Notebooks in English both describe him as a vegetarian, and c) information that several major biographies also describe him as a vegetarian: http://www.ivu.org/history/davinci/hurwitz.html ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)ExplorerMMVIII

A vegetarian he was; important it is not. It's already in the spin-off article Leonardo da Vinci's Private Life (or whatever it's called). PiCo (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo for your response. I hope you don't mind if we examine a little more closely whether or not the point is important enough to include in the main article:

i. Leonardo's vegetarianism provides us with a unique window into his moral outlook. Shouldn't an account if possible include more than what he painted, or who he knew,and include some idea of what he thought about and cared about beyond his work? From the link provided, which includes Leonardo quotations and biographer comments going back at least as far as Vasari, it is crystal clear that vegetarianism was a moral issue with Leonardo. This is one more dramatic example of how far ahead of his time he was. This might not be easy for a non-vegetarian to see. After all, if the non-vegetarian saw it as a moral issue, then they would think it important to be a vegetarian! What is important is that to Leonardo the issue was important enough to significantly inconvenience himself over.

ii. Let's look at the importance of the point from a relative point of view. For instance, the article contains a sentence which mentioned Leonardo's friendship with Gaffurius. While Garrurius was important in the development of music, to most the reference is fairly obscure. For example, a Google search of his name only yields 6,600 links. This is quite a contrast to the 1.4 million links to web pages that contain both "da Vinci" AND "vegetarian"! Many people would thus clearly find a mention of Leonardo's vegetarianism to be quite important indeed. Do they need to hunt elsewhere on the Internet, perhaps to less reliable sources, to satisfy their hunger for truth on the subject?

iii. You mentioned Leonardo's vegetarianism was covered in the article on his personal life. That article is clearly a backwater relative to the main article. This can be observed from the distinct difference in the quality of the editing between the two articles. In fact, I think the section on Leonardo's vegetarianism even contains inaccuracies. The link to his personal life from the main article is easy to miss. As mentioned in ii. above, many people would hope to see at least some information about his vegetarianism in the main article.

iv. I noted the considerable discussion around the subject of Leonardo's sexuality. As was pointed out there is little evidence on the subject and the suitability for child readers is more than questionable. In contrast, there is a great deal of interest in vegetarianism amongst teenagers. It is perhaps not hard to understand the joy they might experience in knowing they shared the same perspective on the subject with the great Leonardo. It seems entirely possible this may even contribute in some cases, to heightened interest in delving more deeply into Leonardo's life.

In view of the above, would any of the editors on this list delete a well written (or well written after editing!) few sentences on the subject of Leonardo's vegetarianism in the Personal Life section of the main article? ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)ExplorerMMVIII

I will write a paragraph here that is a little more descriptive of Leonardo the man. I agree that the vegetarianism is a sign of a type of morality which was uncommon at the time and gives a window into his personality. Amandajm (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Amanda the diplomat :-). ExplorerMMVIII, for some reason, and I don't know why, this article attracts people who seem to have little to no interest in Leonardo as an artist and use him instead to advance personal interests in all sorts of highly tangential areas. Thus at one stage we had sections on Leonardo's fingerprints, his left-handedness, even his sex life, and nothing at all on his art! Ask yourself, are you really interested in his achievement as an artist and his contribution to the course of Western art, or are you interested in promoting vegetarianism? If the latter, how can you logically deny in-depth coverage of his left-handedness and his (Lord preserve me) sex life? (As you'll gather, I'm the bad cop around here!) PiCo (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, What general biography of Leonardo only deals with his development as an artist? Of course people are interested in the personal details about the life of the great universal genius. What does his friendship with Gaffarius have to do with "his achievement as an artist"? Did you object to the inclusion of that and many other examples I could name? Why didn't you mention Leonardo's development as a brilliant inventor, or suggest that section is taken out as well? Why do you want to pursue such a narrow course and ignore his intellectual and ethical outlook? Why do you degrade that aspect by comparing it to apparently trivial details? Why do you assume interest in including personal information precludes greater coverage of his art, or lump the few that would with the majority that would not?

With the above said, yes people do use Leonardo, as well as other respected figures, to advance personal interests. This might be less then ethically acceptable when an actor at least partially trades on popularity obtained through peoples identification with characters in the roles they have played, in order to sell some product. On the other hand, if someone says vegetarians are sandal wearing tree-huggers, is it wrong for them to point out that Leonardo, Percy Shelley, Nikola Tesla, Henry David Thoreau, etc. were vegetarians? Would you delete that piece of information from their biographies? ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)ExplorerMMVIII

Ok! This tree-hugger has done a little rearranging which I think is an improvement, and included that interesting fact. Yeah, yeah, I know the pics not relevant but, wow, Leo Baby would have been rocked to his yellow silk stockings! Amandajm (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Amanda. The one sentence says it nicely. I am a bit concerned though that the example given of his respect for life refers to his respect for the life and freedom of animals. While one can argue that his respect for human animals is implied by respect for animals, I think it might be helpful to point out that in his Notebooks there are examples of his respect for human life as well. I believe there are examples of this in the reference you linked to.

Recognizing the transient nature of Misplaced Pages articles, may I make one more point to PiCo? You refer to Leonardo's vegetarianism as an area "highly tangential" to an encyclopedia article on Leonardo. We know of Leonardo's vegetarianism in the first place through references by not just one, but numerous Leonardo scholars who didn't think the topic was too tangential to include in their biographies and commentaries accompanying their arrangements of his Notebooks. I don't think they did it to "promote vegetarianism". They did it to highlight an important aspect of his life. Leonardo didn't need Darwin to recognize that animals suffer physical pain in a manner quite similar to the way humans do. Perhaps at the time it took a genius to question why we had the right if we didn't have the need.

Amanda, I think even most non-tree-huggers regret that El Grande was cut down! At least I got to see the picture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplorerMMVIII (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Little or no evidence Leonardo was friends with Borgia, Machiavelli

I was surprised to read in the Personal Life section that Borgia was a "friend" of Leonardo and that Machiavelli "later developed a close friendship" with Leonardo. This was at odds with what I remembered reading. A description of friendship with Borgia (the model for Machiavelli's The Prince), without evidence, could be considered an insult to Leonardo. While I am not qualified to comment on the value of Machiavelli to civilization, it is perhaps not obvious to the non-expert that it is positive. Was The Prince a tool in identifying and defending against a future Borgia, or was it a training manual for future Borgia's?

The book given as a reference at the end of the paragraph in question is The Life and Times of Leonardo, 1967, with text by Liana Bortolon. I checked the book out from the library and found it to be a 75 page picture book with text wrapped around it. No index, references, or background on the writer is given. After going through it I could find no mention to a friendship with Borgia or Machiavelli, so it seems the reference to Bortolon referred to the one or two sentences that preceded it, not the entire paragraph.

The book Leonardo da Vinci Renaissance Man, by Alessandro Vezzosi, founder and director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci in Vinci, 1996, (and translated into English in 1997), in turn quotes the book Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power, by Roger D. Masters, 1996: "Neither Machiavelli nor Leonardo mentions the other by name in writings or letters that have survived; this is not conclusive, however, since both were legendary for their elusiveness or deviousness...Letters and archival materials prove that between 1503 and 1506 Machiavelli's responsibilities included four projects on which Leonardo da Vinci was involved. One of these, an attempt to divert the Arno River during the siege of Pisa, is especially important: a letter from the field proves that Leonardo visited the site on 23 July 1503 and played a role in the adoption of the project. Machiavelli's dispatches from Florence demonstrate that he took an active role in supervising the attempted diversion..." Thus all we can say is that they apparently met.

As to Borgia, I found in Vezzosi that Borgia had described Leonardo as "our most excellent and dearly beloved architect and general engineer." Leonardo was beloved by those who knew him. He was also known for his charm, and he certainly would have been at his most charming in the presence of Borgia. Are we friends with all those that are "beloved" by us, if indeed Borgia was referring to his own feelings and not the general consensus? Does being "beloved" by Borgia imply Leonardo considered him a friend? More evidence would need to be found to make the claim they were friends. ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)ExplorerMMVIII

Very good! how about you edit that article section of the article in line with your findings, adding your refs, of course! Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember when dining with Borgia/Beware of the drink that Lucretia porgia. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that given that Bortolon doesn't seem to be an acceptable source, and what I have already mentioned, the whole paragraph could be deleted. I don't have the materials at hand to provide references for Leonardo friendships. Without the material removed, the paragraph seems too thin. I think it would be better for me to drink what Lucretia porgia than for me to add morgia. Given the minimal space devoted to Leonardo's personal life, I wouldn't think it is worth spending space denying the friendships in question. For now I will take out Borgia, Machiavelli, and indicate references are needed for the others. I didn't know I could edit the article because it is semi-protected but I will give it a try. ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Explorer MMVIII

The is one "hidden" DaVinci said to be behind a famous painting in a building. It is in an air pocket behind the massive artwork. The purpose of the "air pocket" is so that the large peinting won't expire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.64.247 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Syntax

"As an engineer, Leonardo's ideas were vastly ahead of his time"

This sentence manages to screw up twice in one breath: there is a disagreement between not two but THREE subjects: the generic role of 'engineer', Leonardo's ideas, and Leonardo himself ('his time'). I think that it is very important for (at least) the introductory paragraphs of (at least) popular/often-visited/featured articles like this to be properly-written, if not well-written. I realize that most people contributing to Misplaced Pages are preoccupied with factual wealth and factual accuracy, but there are undoubtedly a large number of young and/or undereducated people frequenting Misplaced Pages, whose problems with diction are already serious enough without harm from sources claiming to be encyclopedic. 69.196.189.32 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Zinbielnov

Must have been written by a committee. As an editor, this person's comment was no help in solving his problem!

PiCo!! YooHoo! Amandajm (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well-said. I intended it as a challenge to someone else, but I guess if I'm going to complain I should have offered some improvements myself. Here are some pieces for the scrutiny of ones mightier than I:

"Leonardo's brilliant ideas for machines and mechanisms..." "Leonardo's conceptual drawings of novel machines and mechanisms..."

"...are esteemed as prototypical of engineering design." "...are revered as definitive of technological ingenuity." "...are valued not only as artefacts of inventive genius but as prototypes for the graphical conceptualization which has since become a primary tool in most design processes."

It is not easy to be brief when trying to use appropriately descriptive language and also capture the magnitude of the subject. In the process of brainstorming for alternatives I realized that 'ahead of the times' is a colloquialism, and a dim-witted loaded one at that. To compliment someone by saying that his ideas were 'ahead of his time' presumes very openly that 'his time' was dumber or more primitive than 'our time'... that is a very arrogant and problematic assumption to make, and while I cannot stop people from making it, I would hope that at least Leonardo himself can be given a little more credit than 'his time' is given. Anyway, if that condescending idiom can be avoided, as well as proper diction achieved, I would be thrilled. Thank you. 76.10.146.136 (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Person, whoever you are, please get yourself a name! I have conversing with a number, particularly when it changes its digits every time it responds.

I agree with you entirely. It is a real humdinger of a sentence. I take know responsibility for it. In fact I am relieved that it is not one of my offspring which is displaying itself in so dysfunctional a manner. It was included from some previous version of the article. When I reorganised, extended and partly rewrote the article, I was loath to dispensed with all the work that other people had contributed.

I like your suggestions....however, if I include a word such as "brilliant" it will be editted out as a POV statement before midnight. If I say that the ideas are "esteemed" I will be asked to provide evidence that someone esteems them!

Let's try "As an engineer (to retain a little of the original) Leonardo is revered for his technological ingenuity."

I like your longer suggestion a lot and will see if it can be fitted into the article about Leonardo's science and inventions. Amandajm (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, but I think it still needs some work. I'm not sure he's "revered" as an engineer in the modern sense - he's rarely mentioned in engineering course texts as far as I'm aware. How about something totally objective like "As an inventor, Leonardo designed and drew complex mechanical systems which were centuries beyond the technological capabilities of the renaissance"? As an engineer, that instills a much greater sense of understanding (and awe) in me - it's not enough to just say he is "revered". We need to know specifically why! Papa November (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Amandajm, sorry I hadn't logged in earlier. I responded to this earlier, my comment is nowhere to be found, not sure what happened. Anyway I'm a mechanical engineering student and contrary to what Papa November said, in my overview class we dwelled quite a bit on Leonardo's inventions, drawings, and his 'engineering savvy' (inventive genius) in the process of attempting to define what "engineer" and "engineering" even mean today. Anyway, the new sentence is already 2/3 better than it originally was, glad to see it, but I really hope to do away with the "As an engineer" clause. It is incorrect sentence structure (describing the subject before instroducing him, not sure what the error is called formally), but more importantly, I would say "As an engineer, Leonardo wasn't, at least with respect to the modern definition!". Engineer is a kind of catch-all term that seems to encompass all prevalent uses of applied science of the given era. If I devoted my life in this era to the same pursuits Leonardo did (which is my dream), you can bet nobody will call me an engineer - a 'recluse' for sure, and an 'inventor' if I'm lucky. Anyway, I think it's impossible to pin any current job title on Leonardo, so I thought since 'technological ingenuity' already specifies his field of achievement sufficiently, you could replace the clause altogether with one that indicates which modern day areas of productivity owe the most to Leonardo's ideas and way of thinking, i.e. who has most reason to 'revere him':

"Among engineers, inventors and designers in general, Leonardo is revered..."

That sort of thing...just an idea, and thanks for bothering with this! Zinbielnov (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm an electronic engineer and I've never had the "Leonardo talk". I think it's going way too far to state that he is revered by engineers in general. We could possibly refer to an engineering textbook, which refers to this but we cannot just make such a bold, sweeping statement without verification. I think it would still be much better to just present the (awesome) facts rather than people's opinions about him: he invented extremely complex systems, which were centuries beyond the technological capabilities of the renaissance. Papa November (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the accomplishments speak for themselves, I had no intention of gratuitously heaping praise, my only problem was with the syntax and bias in the original sentence, which is already pretty much fixed. The only extra idea that I thought of 'injecting' into the new sentence was that Leonardo's technical drawings themselves were a prototype for documentation of concepts in engineering design and design in general, this is what was stressed in my class, but it is entirely subjective by nature, as is the definition of 'design'. I think that's worth pointing out - that apart from the inventions themselves, Leonardo's in-progress drawings of his ideas seem to have shed much light on 'the art of scientific thinking', if you will. In any case, I'm in favour of minimalism on Misplaced Pages, since the factual wealth alone makes it more than bloated enough, and any opinions written here stand to homogenize popular opinion. Less is definitely more, and I'm out of ideas for this, I will leave it to someone else to 'carry the torch' (matchstick in this case) if they so choose. Zinbielnov (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Leonardo is revered as an inventor..." might do. This is undoubtedly true. Every kid in every classroom across the world reveres him as an inventor, regardless of what cynical engineers might think! I'll try again. Amandajm (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Left the "as an...." bit out completely! Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I doubt that every child reveres Leonardo - I suspect that very few kids give any thought to the guy! Really, to say that someone is "revered" (a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration) needs a strong reference at least, but even then it looks rather POV-laden. We should just stick to the facts. Papa November (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Papa. Perhaps, instead of talking about Len's God-like status, we should talk abt the way Len is somewhat over-hyped, and certainly misunderstood, today. Len the scientist? Julie Andrews said that the hills were alive. So did Len, but in his case, he really meant it. Vegetative Spirit really meant something back in those days. PiCo (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I've been reorganising the lead section with the intention of making the facts more prominent. At present, there are so many vague terms and unqualified praise that it's really difficult to understand that Leonardo was a real person. So much weight is put upon people's opinions of him, that it dwarfs the facts. The article on the Arab polymath Ibn al-Haytham does the job far better I think.

Here are the changes I've made:

1. Per WP:MOSBIO, the first sentence should clearly state who Leonardo was. The previous version talked about popular opinion of him ("is widely considered") rather than simply stating that he was a Florentine polymath and neutrally listing his activities.

response This has been reverted to an earlier form which is more accurate. To say that Leonardo "worked as" all these things is not accurate if it imples (as it does) that he was employed to do them. He wasn't! He was employed as a painter, he was also commissioned to sculpt. he may have been paid for the mathematical drawings that he did in Bologna. He was employed from time to time as an engineer. But he certainly wasn't employed as a botanist, writer etc. (AJM)

OK, thanks  Done (PN)

2. Moved opinions/statements about his legendary status to the end of the lead. We started to do this in the article, and the lead should do likewise.

response If this wasn't wikipedia, it would be possible to write "Leonardo was one of the greatest painters ever to have lived." That is (and always has been) his status in the collective mind of the world. However, it can only be stated on Wiki as a qualified opinion. So "how he is regarded" is very important in the introduction to give the reader a picture of the status that he occupies.

3. "It is primarily as a painter that Leonardo was and is renowned" -> "Leonardo was and is renowned primarily as a painter." (Reduced redundancy, easier sentence structure to have subject before object)

fixed (AJM)

 Done (PN)

4. "Occupy unique positions as" -> "are". (rm redundancy: the "most reproduced" painting etc... is by definition a unique position. Think about the converse!)

fixed (AJM)

 Done (PN)

5. "is also iconic". (Too peacocky - who says it is iconic? Iconic of what?)

response As you are perfectly well aware, in current use, the term "iconic" doesn't need to be iconic of anything. How do we know it is iconic? A quick google reveals at least seven different brands of t-shirt printed with this image. It's a bit like the face of Che Guevera, also an iconic image. (AJM)

Yes, personally I agree with you about its iconic status, its ubiquity in popular culture etc. On Misplaced Pages however, the word "iconic" is guaranteed to start POV alarm bells ringing, as there are numerous such statements here (e.g. Gary Cooper, Gucci, Supergirl and the Gundam (mobile suit)). I'm sure anime fans would be as passionate about the iconic status of their favourite "mobile suit" as we are about Vitruvian Man! This should be easy to fix. Firstly, there must be a prominent art historian who describes the image's cultural significance. Secondly, by directly quoting, rather than summarising the source, accusations of POV can be completely avoided. Something like "Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man has also been described as 'iconic'." or "Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man has also become ubiquitous in popular culture." would be safer. (PN)

6. "a contribution to a later generation of artists". (What does this mean? Needs to be specific i.e. "influenced a later generation of artists"?, "provided inspiration for..."? What aspect of his work was inspirational? Specifically, what did Leonardo introduce to art? There's no explanation of why all these people though his art was so great.)

• response There is no room for an explanation of this in the already-long introduction. It requires a long section. However, the article is already so long, that it probably requires a separate article. (AJM)

  OK, I agree it would be too difficult to summarise his legacy fully in the lead. Can anything be done to clarify the sentence itself though? I'm just not clear about what it means. Would "...inspired/influenced a later generation of artists" be accurate? (PN)

7. "rivalled only". (Who made this comparison between the contributions of Leonardo and Michaelangelo? "Rivalled only" sounds like no one else in the Renaissance even mattered, so this needs a serious reference at least!)

• No artist at that time, was as renowned or as influential as those two. I feel inclined to ask you how many High Renaissance painters you can actually name. The average person can name Leonardo and Michelangelo. fullstop. The time at which they lived is known as the "High Renaissance" because of them. The third artist of the famous trio was Raphael. Raphael died in his 30s. His influence was subtler. He himself borrowed from his two older contemporaries. They were both highly original artists. Raphael was not. (AJM)

  Thanks, that's much clearer now. However, I'm still not clear how Leonardo "wins" over Michaelangelo. Can any of this be briefly summarised with a reference? How about "Along with Michaelangelo and Raphael, Leonardo was a central figure in the High Renaissance."? (PN)

Any opinions on how we can improve things would be appreciated. Papa November (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the maintenance tags which were deleted in the last edits. Please could we discuss the specific issues I have pointed out? There's an additional point I missed last time:

8. "entered the world of manufacturing unheralded" - what does this mean? Could it mean that Leonardo wasn't given proper credit?... that his inventions were not widely sold?... something else? Papa November (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• It means that several inventions with which he is now creditted were put to practical use in industry, without it being remembered who invented them. They are things like the bobbin-winder which no-one gets in the least excited about, because it doesn't fly, roar or chop people's legs off.

Amandajm (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again, that's much clearer. Can we incorporate part of it? Papa November (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Further response

NOTE: This response is actually later than what lies below, but is more important.

I have just thought about your edits, in the light of canges which PiCo had made earlier.

November man, please read this:-

Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE—26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God.

Note that it does not say Jesus of Nazareth (dates) was an itinerant preacher and healer. He was born in Judea, the son of Joseph, a carpenter and Mary. Little is known of his first thirty years. He began preaching at the age of about 30. He was executed for sedition.

What we are told in the leading paragraph is why this person is famous enough to derserves a wikipedia article. Jesus is famous as the central figure of Christianity. Leonardo is famous because he is regarded as the archetypal Renaissance man and one of the most intellingent people and one of the greatest painters that has ever lived. That is why he is famous.

He is not famous because he was a scientist. he is not famous simply because he was a painter. He is enormously famous because is is regarded as a brilliantly outstanding genius. This is the thing that warrants four separate wikipedia articles on him. And it's the proably reason why people who really know very little about him want to buy into reorganising the article.

• Below are some more responses to the tags you have added. I consider them probably all unnecessary.

"Leonardo was and is renowned primarily as a painter. Two of his works, the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, are the most famous, most reproduced and most parodied portrait and religious painting of all time, their fame approached only by Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man is also iconic. Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number due to his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques, and his chronic procrastination. Nevertheless, these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, comprise a contribution to later generations of artists only rivalled by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo.

Leonardo is revered for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator, the double hull and outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime, but some of his smaller inventions, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded. As a scientist, he greatly advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics.

I've dumped this here to better respond to the tags.

• Vitruvian Man is also iconic.

I have partly reponded to this above. This is not a "peacock term" as used here. The only other way of saying this requires a great many more words. It is the most famous drawing ever, but no art history book states "this is the most famous drawing ever". They simply reproduce it over and over again. That is what has made it it so famous. It is also reproduced in Maths textbooks, Science textbooks, Anatomy textbooks and so on.

How do we know it is the most famous? Novemberman, we've covered this before. We know it is famous because Homer Simpson parodies it, Mickey Mouse parodies it, Garfield parodies it and Dan Brown expects that everyone will know what he is referring to when he describes how the curator died. After the image of the crucified Christ, the Vitruvian man is proabaly the best-known man in the world. 23,000 hits on Google give the name "Vitruvian Man" to the image and another 60,000 describe it as man in a circle and square. I can't help the fact that you didn't know that Leonardo drew it. Almost everyone else on the planet does!

• "rivalled" is a peacock term. No it isn't. The were, quite literally, "rivals" . This is besides the explanation above which makes it clear that there were only two such influential artists.
• "Leonardo is revered for his technological ingenuity. This is not a "peacock term. The reasons are imediately explained.
• "Leonardo is revered for his technological ingenuity." To expect citation for this is absolutely ridiculous. You are being nitpicking. Besides which, this is the introduction, and intros do not need to have masses of citations. They are a summary. There are a great number of quotes near the end of the article which indicate to what extent the man was revered. That is sufficient.
• The matter of his inventions is dealt with elsewhere.

Amandajm (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I really think that the peacockery issue is significant here. Why use words like "iconic" and "reveres" if the facts speak for themselves? The style guideline is very clear on this. The guidelines states that in some cases using superlative adjectives may be useful, but "...the most reputable experts in the respective field must support the claim." The word "iconic" is specifically listed as a word to watch out for. I'm afraid I really don't see the benefit of making such statements here without citations as they only serve to cloud over the facts.

I get the feeling our interpretations of the style guidelines differ significantly and we may not agree on this. Perhaps a third opinion is in order? Papa November (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Here is a section that I have copied directly from the wikipedia guide about peacock terms.

Do not hide the important facts This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic. It is appropriate to write "The Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean" and "World War II was among the most important wars of the century". Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third longest river in Rhode Island, but when it comes to the Amazon River, Misplaced Pages readers should be told just how big it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be told that—tell them how important and why.

In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph.

• Let me explain to you that Leonardo da Vinci is like the Amazon River and Michelangelo is like the Nile. Neither of them is like the third longest river in Rhode Island.

• If there is a single drawing that could be described as "iconic", then it is the Vitruvian Man. What is it iconic of? It is the icon of humanity, the icon of man, the icon of genius, the icon of science, the icon of maths, the icon of anatomy, the icon of proportion, and the icon of Leonardo himself. It is iconic because almost every person on the planet who has the benefit of education recognises it.

• Concerning the sentence that the influence of Leonardo was rivalled only by that of Michelangelo. On reading this, you, November man, grasped from it that these two artists far outstripped every other artist of their time in influence. That is what the reader is intended to understand. That is exactly what is meant.

• Concerning the sentence that you felt contained a redundancy because it said that two works had "unique status" as the most reproduced, parodied etc, portrait and artwork. I went along with the removal, but I have rethought this.

Simply saying that these works are the "most reproduced" etc gives no real indication of the status that each has. "Most reproduced" is a simple matter of numerics. These two works have a unique status. Their status is their extraordinary fame, which began long before easy reproduction of them was possible. They are reproduced and parodied because they are uniquely famous and not the other way about. In other words, when Vasari wrote about the Mona Lisa in the 1500s, he was writing about a portrait that was already had "unique status".

Novemberman, every sentence in this introduction has been worded with extreme care. Words like "unique" and "iconic" have not been used lightly. This article is about an artist/scientist who has revered status. Very few artists can be said to be revered. The shortlist is Giotto, (dating from around 1300), Michelangelo and Leonardo.

• With regards to whether the most reputable experts in the respective field must support the claim.

The claims being made about Leonardo's fame are supported by a whole section with string of direct quotations pertaining to his "legendary status".

• One of the things that you are not clear about is that not every statement in the intro needs to be fully explained or fully cited, if it is dealt with elswhere in the article.

Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for any facts to be hidden. I'm asking for the facts to be presented in a neutral way. The crux of the matter is that you are stating that Leonardo is a "legend", that he "is revered" and that his work is "iconic", while the sources never make such claims directly.

Yes, there are plenty of sources which praise Leonardo's ingenuity, so you can neutrally state something like "Writers including Liana Bortolon, x and y have described the awe and admiration that Leonardo continues to inspire". Surely you can see the difference between neutral statements, which can be verified directly from the sources, and the phrase "Leonardo is revered", which is just your own synthesis of critical and popular opinion.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and your own synthesis of published material is not permitted. It is not good enough to cite a set of sources praising Leonardo and come to the conclusion that he "is revered". This constitutes original research. Of course, the same policy states that summarising sources constitutes good editing. You could however, do this in a neutral way, with no peacockery at all as in the example I gave above. There's really no point in incorporating such overblown language when the sources speak for themselves. Even the Jesus article qualifies its bold statement that he is "revered by most Christian Churches". Are we supposed to believe that Leonardo's technological ingenuity is universally revered, while Jesus is only selectively revered? Surely not! Furthermore, the Jesus article explains at great length the specific nature of this (literal) reverence, while the Leonardo article draws it as an original conclusion from sources which never make such a bold claim.

You are right that the lead doesn't need to be as firmly referenced as the rest of the article. However, the style guidelines also say that peacock terms should be particularly avoided in the lead section. Coming back to the spirit of the rules: if you want to use such strong terms, you need good references. Papa November (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

At first blush, I can't see any clear reason to include "revered for his technological ingenuity" unless anyone actually worshipped him. Less peacocky, but still probably too positive for NPOV, are "renowned" (why not "known"?) and "seemingly infinite curiosity" (Who says it's infinite? Seems like a pretty clear case of hyperbole to me). "powers of invention" could probably be replaced with a more neutral term as well.

Da Vinci is clearly a very, very important historical figure. However, I'd encourage the editors to make sure that importance is phrased without excessive praise. One can call him a notable and important inventor without calling him revered, or a very famous artist without using "renowned". Would everyone worldwide agree with his cultural importance? Perhaps not. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I broadly agree with your proposals. However, I think that it's still important to make sure that all descriptive terms can be attributed to a source. Although saying that someone is "known" for something is more neutral than "renowned", it still raises the question "known by whom?" I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know much about the guy at all, so let's just neutrally state who he was, what he did and what people have said about him. That avoids making any unverifiable assumptions about what the general population thinks.

I also think you raised a very interesting point about presenting a global viewpoint. I remember hearing a talk by an Egyptian professor of physics in which he proposed that there is some resentment in the Arab world of the perceived bias that Europeans put on the work of European Renaissance men over mediaeval Islamic scholars such as Ibn Al-Haytham, who he believed were of comparable greatness to Leonardo. Another reason why unqualified and uncited use of words like "revered" may not be appropriate? Papa November (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While I normally prefer that a biography be clean of superlatives, sometimes the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts and superlatives become necessary. Da Vinci is more than the sum of the different things he did and notable and important inventor barely scratches the surface. I looked up Britannica and, even that encyclopedia which is not usually given to hyperbole says things like (and this is just one example amongst epitomized, most influential, centuries ahead of his time, etc.) The unique fame that Leonardo enjoyed in his lifetime and that, filtered by historical criticism, has remained undimmed to the present day rests largely on his unlimited desire for knowledge, which guided all his thinking and behaviour. Note the unique fame part because his fame is unique and the article should convey that uniqueness or we're doing our readers a disservice. (Of course, these claims should be appropriately sourced as Papa November points out but I do notice that even infinite curiosity is sourced, and well sourced at that. Some toning down may be in order but please don't throw the baby out as well.)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• GA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Anatomy articles
• Mid-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about an unassessed area
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• GA-Class Architecture articles
• High-importance Architecture articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Mid-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class Medieval philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Medieval philosophy articles
• Medieval philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• GA-Class France articles
• Unknown-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• GA-Class Middle Ages articles
• Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
• GA-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• GA-Class Civil engineering articles
• Unknown-importance Civil engineering articles
• WikiProject Civil engineering articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages