Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 20 January 2006

Template:FormerFA

Leonardo da Vinci received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Mainpage date Template:Past AID This is the article of the week for the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, which aims to add references to Misplaced Pages articles . As such, I've been adding some refs to books via the Google Print service. Two errors found so far:

Note format

• Note 1: da Vinci's employment with Ludovico Sforza commenced in 1478, not 1482 as previously stated.
• Note 2: da Vinci's father's occupation was wrongly stated, according to

--Neoconned 06:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leonardo appears to never have had intimate relations with women and was once anonymously accused of homosexual contact with a 17 year old model, but considering that the same was said of Michelangelo and of other artists too, this seems to be more a popular legend than a fact, originated perhaps because of detailed frequent paintings or sculpting of naked men.

What was said of Michelangelo? That he didn't have relations with women and that he was anonymously accused of homosexual relations? What exactly is being dismissed as legend here? I tried a different phrasing. --AxelBoldt

From the main page:

It is been proven that he is not homosexual at all.

Lacking more information about this proof, I removed this sentence. AxelBoldt

There is no solid evidence that he was homosexual, it is purely speculative conjecture based on a twisting of phrases taken out of context. Da Vinci should be here to defend himself. Shame on Misplaced Pages for allowing such innuendos.

Seeing Zoe's deletion about the unfinished monumental horse in Milan, perhaps it would be a good idea to list da Vinci's accomplishments, separated into completed & proposed. (da Vinci had a long list of incomplete projects, which suggest to me that he had ADD. -- llywrch

EH? I didn't delete anything about the horse, it's still there. -- Zoe

Er, well, when I was looking at the history of the article to see what you changed, I thought I saw that you deleted that paragraph. I looked again: it is in the current version. Sorry for the mistake. -- llywrch

Does anybody know by whom and when da Vinci's portrait was drawn? AxelBoldt 21:38 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In 1502 Leonardo da Vinci produced a drawing of a single span 720-foot (240 m) bridge

Erm, which is it? 720' or 240m? The units don't match up. DanKeshet

Leonardo in Fiction

Is there any way we might turn this into a seperate article? I know he's getting a lot of attention with The DaVinci Code, plus I'd like to go into a bit more detail on his appearances in DC Comics. 70.153.5.195 22:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. See Leonardo da Vinci in fiction. Cfitzart 00:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine that LDV (555 in Roman numerals) was not a filthy pervert. His signature "pointed finger" was his medieval version of today's obscene gesture.

Disambiguation lunacy

Fair dinkum, this disambiguation mania has got to stop. It is utterly riduiculous for us to walk around pretending we are making a real encyclopedia when we do stupid 5th-grade stuff like starting an entry on someone of the stature of Leonardo by pointing to a bloody cartoon character, of all things.

Sure, have a page at Leonardo da Vinci (disambiguation) if that seems justified. But in this case there are three good reasons not to go into silly mode.

• (a): The original Leoanardo is vastly more famous and more important than any cartoon character. (Lest you say "what about Mickey Mouse", remember that even Mickey has only been famous for less than a century, and can reasonably be expected to become less famous over time - a proces that has already started. Leonardo has been famous for vastly longer, and can reasonably be expected to still be famous long after Mickey Mouse is just a footnote to history, and the Ninja Turtles are utterly forgotten.)

• (b) The original Leoanardo is indeed the original - i.e., this Leonardo is the one that the others are named after.

• (c): No reasonable person would expect to find a mutant ninja turtle here at this page. Least surprise rule, remember?

Sorry for the rant, but there has been quite a bit of this absurd nonsense lately, and I just spat the dummy. Tannin 00:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The original Leonardo is vastly more famous to you and me. To every user? I think not. A "reasonable person" might expect to find the turtle here, if they were 10 years old (as a portion of our users are). Not only that, but I fail to see how the article is harmed by a mild, inobtrusive notice. I agree that the artist is by far the more important; that's why he deserves the page Leonardo while others are relegated to Leonardo (description). However, people do use Misplaced Pages for stuff other than fine art. Meelar 01:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Some people are lamentably ill-educated (something for which television, and American television in particular can take a great deal of the blame, by the way). However, it is not our task to pander to the ignorant by reducing the Misplaced Pages to the level of the lowest common denominator. Leonardo da Vinci's significance is far greater than that part of it attributable to his artistic talents alone.

The harm this trivial and obtrusive notice does is obvious: it distracts the reader's attention away from the subject matter of the article, and demeans and trivialises an important subject. If you absolutely must mention ninja turtles in this context, then at least have the decency to do so at the foot of the article where it is not so offensive. But in the hope that you will find this more acceptable, instead of moving the offending line this time, I'll simply delete it. Replace it at the foot if you insist (I argue against that too, but not terribly strongly) but I will continue to remove this silliness from the head of the article as often as necessary. Tannin 10:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have re-added the notice.(with a slight change in phrasing). I do not find the argument against it to be persuasive.

(1) importance - not a reason not to provide a disambig notice; they are for providing links to other possible meanings of the term searched for. The relative importance of the meanings is not a factor, the ambiguity is.

(2) this is the original - also, not a factor, the point is to fix ambiguity, not to make any claim about derivative or original status.

(3) wouldn't expect to find anything else at this page - at the page "Leonardo da Vinci", probably not; at the page "Leonardo"(which is a redirect here), absolutely - it's the name of more than one entity - that is, it's ambiguous.

(4) distracts the reader's attention - in a small way, but it is a case of ambiguity, and for those who are looking for other Leonardos, it is more helpful than the mild distraction of a one line notice.

(5) demeans and trivializes - no. possibly the existence of other entities(especially pop culture ones) with the name Leonardo "demeans and trivializes" him, but making it possible for someone to search for "Leonardo" and find what they are looking for does not. It is merely and simply a way of fixing a article title(Leonardo) which is ambiguous. It has nothing to do with fine art, cartoon characters, originality, importance or any of the above; it's just a disambiguation. JesseW 22:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

? Why have that disambiguation notice here, where it does look absurd? If this is all about people being able to find the Ninja Turtle by typing in "Leonardo", which I agree is desirable, that'll be better achieved by turning the redirect Leonardo into a disambiguation page, surely. I just have, and am removing the notice from the top of this Featured article. (Do we want to look ridiculous? No? Well, then.) Most people looking for Leonardo da Vinci won't type merely "Leonardo", even if that was his full name--it's not how he's usually referred to--so the inconvenience of that leading to a disambig page is minimal.--] 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just want to note here that there is a Brazilian football (soccer) whose full name is Nascimento de Araujo Leonardo, but he is known simply as Leonardo. I added him to the disambig page... but maybe we should move the disambig page to Leonardo (disambiguation) and change the notice on this page to say

This page is about the artist. For other entities named Leonardo, see Leonardo (disambiguation).

Then we will not need to worry about the "stupidity" of "ninja turtle" appearing on this article, and the disambig message would become similiar to Raphael's. That just makes more sense. --Dryazan 19:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that solution is great, and I'm glad to see that it has been implemented. JesseW 06:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorting names in categories

Why is Leonardo da Vinci sorted in the categories by "Leonardo" and not "Vinci"? --Conti|✉ 21:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leonardo is his name; Vinci is the place where he was born and not a surname in the common English sense. Fredrik | talk 23:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer :-) --Conti|✉ 01:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

Has anybody considered mentioning the book 'The Da Vinci Code' anywhere in the article? I'm not sure if it is appropriate, but maybe it should be written about? I'd like to know what parts of the book are truth, what parts are fiction, and what parts are exaggerated. -- ] 13:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I too would like to know what parts of the book were true/exaggerated/fiction--but this should be written up in the Da Vinci Code article, not the Da Vinci article. Antandrus 17:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most of da things dat he says in this book is very convincing. Ang the author himself claims dat the backdrop to his fictious story is based on truth. I guess every part of the story besides da part about Sauniere dying, Sophie n Robert's whole quest 2 figure out da codes, n silas is true.

Whereas it is agreed upon that Dan Brown's mention should mainly be in article on da vinci code, a fleeting mention is warranted here too and thus i have done the needful.

Just because you say it's agreed upon, doesn't mean it is. Clearly stated by Antandrus, the Davinci code and its "conjecture" should be in the Da Vinci Code writeup. Please, let's try and realize that Dan Brown's work of Fiction is probably the worst way to go about expanding Leonardo's life and works (aka. Non-fiction).Sp00n17 13:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I don't think that extensive details about 'The Da Vinci Code' belong here, I do think that one sentence and a link would be appropriate. --Arcadian 01:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following is already in the page within the In fiction section

"Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code revolves around a conspiracy which is hinted at in Leonardo's Last Supper."

So, was there something else you wanted to add? I'm confused. --sp00n17 03:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider why every serious Leonardo scholar, and here I am thinking of Martin Kemp, Goldsheider and Frere have /consistently/ made no reference to any such membership of a Priory of Sion. Please let us distinguish myth from fact or wikipedia is useless.

About the secret or hidden meanings in Da Vinci Code; it is popularly believed that his famous painting Mona Lisa was a self portrait. As he was once accused of homosexuality, and we can't see he had any relationships with women, it seems that he might be a homosexual. Otherwise portraying himself as a female doesn't make any sense. Either this discovery is wrong or it creates a lot of confusion that why a man would paint himself as a woman. If this is true that Mona Lisa is a self portrait then there is definitely a hidden meaning of his painting. (202.125.147.199)

When I look at the Mona Lisa I see a woman and nothing else. There's no hint that it could be a man diguised as a woman. Fulcher 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

...but can you spin straw into gold? --Wetman 09:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless any of you are blind, you should see no similarities between Leonardo's portrait(s) and the Mona Lisa. Why would he call himself Lisa, anyway? lol, if you are blind, no offense meant... -Claire the Anonymous

Image caption

The picture at the top badly needs a more informative caption. Is it a self-portrait? Is it a portrait by someone else, and then by whom? What year is it from? Where can the original be found today? Fredrik | talk 11:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are serious anachronisms that need to be addressed, or, at the very least explained either by use of description or sketch illustrations. It is impossible for example to say that Leonardo designed a helicopter centuries before Igor Sikorsky without giving at least in some way the impression that his 'aerial screw' resembles contemporary machines. Similarly by over-emphasising the link between Leonardo and robotics you are ascribing a hagiographic mythology that is in no way compareable to reality. Try to cut down on words that wouldn't have existed in the Italian Renaissance as this is completely ahistoric.

By the way, it's a common mistake to tell he invented helicopter, since helicopters fly using lift force, not by "pushing the air down".

"Leonardo da Vinci", "da Vinci, Leonardo" or "Vinci, Leonardo da"

changed references from "da Vinci" to "Vinci", giving the edit summary "Arguement could be made for key under L for Leonardo too, but certainly not under 'da'". Encyclopedia Britannica has the main article under L, with references from V and from D. Dan Brown obviously saw "da Vinci" as the last name. Though he is not a truth witness, I think that a reference from D is sensible.--Niels Ø 22:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Leonardo" is correct. Fredrik | talk 23:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would concur that Leonardo is of such singular fame that he could be listed under L. But interpolations such as de, da, von, etc. are never considered for the purposes of alphabetizing surnames. Fawcett5 20:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check out alphabetization of de Morgan and de Moivre in Misplaced Pages and in Britannica, then! I will not argue about which is the most correct (in Leonardo's case, I think it is L). But D still seems at least as reasonable as V to me.

Given that 'da Vinci' means 'from Vinci', 'da Vinci, Leonardo' is surely as incongruous as 'of Arc, Joan', filed under 'O'. The difficulty is with names like Van Eyck, Van Dyck, Van Gogh etc. The last two spent some time in England where it stands to reason that 'V' would have been treated as the first letter of their surnames. Perhaps that also explains 'de Morgan' under 'D'? And we always refer to 'Rembrandt', never 'van Rijn'; 'Giotto' not 'di Bondone' and so on. Ham 14:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Experts" in Art History, (Martin Kemp, Carlo Pedretti, Charles Nicholl, and even myself - Stephen 'from Douglas') always refer to the Master as Leonardo, and Martin and Charles use the Italian pronunciation 'LAY-on-ardo'. Like Ham (above) I jokingly refer to you-know-who as 'of Nazareth' or 'of Bethlehem'. The entry in the baptism register was Leonardo di Ser Piero da Vinci; some texts say that Leonardo was born in the village of Anchiano, near Vinci!

User:Steve - Leonardo Looney 01 Oct 2005

Doesn't the confusion come from assuming that "da Vinci" was a surname, that Leonardo's parents were Mr and Mrs da Vinci? --Wetman 23:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Anghiari

What were the "technical difficulties that prevented Leonardo from completing the Battle of Anghiari mural? --Theo (Talk) 23:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To quote Sherwin B. Nuland:

It is thought that the plaster on which the work was being done was badly made, but for whatever reason the colors on the painting's upper portion ran when the artist attempted to dry the work with the heat from a charcoal fire. The damage might have been repaired, but Leonardo abandoned the project and did not return to it, some say because he was more interested in the work he was then doing on the flight of birds.

From Leonardo da Vinci by Sherwin B. Nuland. Viking Penguin, 2000. -- IvanP 16:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC

Is this article now worth nomination for Featured Article Status? Fulfils... I think most of Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article. - Estel (talk) 13:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, assuming that this is a Biography, then WikiProject Biographys says that it must have the following sections:

• • Front matter (above the table of contents)
    • One or two paragraphs giving a brief record of the person's life. Remember, on a print-out, this is the information on page #1.
      • Name in bold print followed by the birth and death dates in parenthesis. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) for more information.
      • One sentence describing the occupation(s) and most notable accomplishment.
      • Information on parentage, spouse(s), descendants, as well as residency. Include dates.
  • Early Years - major experiences (especially those contributing to later achievments, education.
  • Major Achievements (in timeline order)
  • References (with cited sources)
  • See also
  • External links

Of which "Early years" and "Major Achievements" do not exist in that form - Estel (talk) 13:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, this is by far not yet ready for WP:FAC. A cursory read revealed false information (see #Leonardo's death below). The article needs at least a thorough fact check and more extensive referencing. Lupo 08:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian

I am terribly sorry but what does the category vegetarians do on this article. Nowhere in this article it states he was a vegetarian. It would be kinda difficult to find that out wouldn't it? Waerth 02:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The information can be found through this link. Written by David Hurwitz. --Eleassar777 12:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Right now I was inclined to remove te vegetarian cat, but 15.000 edit experience on nl:wikipedia told me to ask first .... not everybody might think that way .... Waerth 00:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I included some information and a link yesterday. Feel free to add more. Regards. --Eleassar777 06:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thx .... interesting it already was an issue so long ago ... Waerth 12:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hello. I think the image is not correctly depicting Leonardo. I suggest replacing it with the "standard" image of Leonardo (his scetched self-portrait) instead of this make-up version created by some else much later. --Fred chessplayer 16:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the commons image page, the one at the top is a self-portrait also. Probably not right, though. Fredrik | talk 17:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality versus Morality

I can't believe the article this contained logic--good catch.Yeago 17:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Perspective

I would love to see something here about Leonardo's role in the birth and evolution of perspective, ideally linking to Jean Gebser or a similar article. — FJ | hello 17:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo's death

I have replaced the bolded text from following sentence of the article:

Leonardo da Vinci died in Cloux, France on 2nd May, 1519, in the arms of King Francis.

where "" pointed to the reference

Renaissance Warrior and Patron, R J Knecht, page 140

This reference, which I have also removed, is from a book on Francis I, not on Leonardo; it doesn't say anything on Leonardo's death except "Leonardo came to France in 1516, where he was given the manor of Cloux outside Amboise by the king, and he died there three years later." In contrast, the 1911 Britannica writes "King Francis, then at his court of St Germain-en-Laye, is said to have wept for the loss of such a servant; that he was present beside the death-bed and held the dying painter in his arms is a familiar but an untrue tale." (emphasis added, Lupo. de:Leonardo da Vinci uses an exact translation of this 1911 Britannica text.) A French web site states "C'est là qu'il mourut, le 2 mai 1519, au Clos-Lucé dans les bras de son élève Francisco Melzi (et non de François 1er, comme le veut la légende)." ("There he died on May 2nd, 1519, in Clos-Lucé in the arms of Francesco Melzi (and not, as the legend tells, of Francis I).") is another site claiming that Leonardo didn't die in the king's arms. Brockwell, based on Vasari, is another source that does report the "Francis I" version. I don't know who this Brockwell was, and Giorgio Vasari's works seem to be of doubtful accuracy and he may well have been liable to glorify a bit. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the 1911 Britannica; at the very least, it seems to be unclear in whose arms Leonardo died. I have therefore removed both the mention from the text and that "Google print" reference. Lupo 07:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this Google search indicates that "Cloux" and "Clos Lucé" are different names for the same place. I've changed the "Professional life" section accordingly. Lupo 08:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salai

I was surprised by the paragraph that begins with: "In 1506, Leonardo met Count Francesco Melzi, the 15 year old son of a Lombard aristocrat. Salai eventually accepted Melzi's continued presence and the three undertook journeys throughout Italy." Nowhere in the text before the second sentence is a Salai mentioned.

After going through the history of the page, I found there was an edit performed on July 29th that removed a whole section on rumors about Leonardo's homosexuality that explained who Salai was. I think the rest of the paragraph makes very little sense without the three paragraphs that have been removed (including why exactly this Salai would have minded Melzi's presence, etc.).

There is no comment on the edit. Does anyone have an opinion as to why the three paragraphs that were removed should be removed?

You mean this edit. Obviously, Salai needs to be introduced. I have added a short paragraph to that effect. Discussion about Leonardo's alleged homosexuality should go in some other section, since most of it is speculation and interpretation by much later historians and/or critics. Also, any discussion of that topic should be written carefully and sourced extensively and precisely. Lupo 10:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that those paragraphs belong at the top of the article. It almost seems as though the discussion of whether Leonardo is a homosexual is placed as being more relevant than discussion about his art, inventions etc. Cfitzart 04:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

...more a reflection on Misplaced Pages than on Leonardo really. --Wetman 06:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Periods

Added some more to the Art section. The Catholic encyclopedia here has a nice way of dividing his life into 3 'periods' which I thought would be good to have here:

• 1. Florentine Period
• 2. Milanese period
• 3. Nomadic period

Cfitzart 15:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo portrait

Just a thought: maybe somebody who knows how (I don't since I'm new to Misplaced Pages) could take the second (much more famous) portrait of Leonardo and place it at the beginning of the page instead of that odd picture of him wearing a hat?

I thought about it before, but since you point it out I'm going to do it right now. Jules LT 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done!

Good idea, I thought about doing that before too, It looks much better now Cfitzart 23:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal life

POV issues - Removed "handsome" from the sentence about Leonardo surrounding himself with men, changed Leonardo from being "widely assumed" he was a homosexual, to its possible that he was. Removed link to vice squad Also removed "which a majority of male Florentines engaged in" - highly POV. Probably still needs more work. Cfitzart 04:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Also removed "which a majority of male Florentines engaged in" - highly POV." What source do you base your statement on, as it in opposition to Michael Rocke's historical and statistical studies claiming otherwise? (Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence) Haiduc 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Is his opinion really accepted by the community? Here it says that "Rocke builds one of his central arguments on shaky foundations". It was also defined broadly; "sodomy was legally defined as any sexual act that would not result in procreation". Cfitzart 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, interesting review, I was not aware of that interpretation. I don't mind removing the bit about "the majority" as long as we include the fact (needed to establish context) that the Florentines were famous throughout Europe for their tradition of sodomy (we can agree on that, can we not?) Haiduc 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I doubted it at first, but did find alot of references to it. How about using the word "widespread" as it does in the article on Florence? -- Cfitzart 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good choice, thank you. Haiduc 02:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It needs a quote from Vasari implying Leonardo's fondness for young fellows or Vasari's silence on the subject, for a start. The rest is sound and fury... --Wetman 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is bigger than Leonardo!

I mean, c'mon. I was reading this comments and some jerk was saying that Leonardo Fucking Vinci is more famous than Mickey Mouse! That's preposterous! I mean, tell me how many children give a fuck about the boring to death paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. I agree the Ninja Turtles have been forgotten, but don't say stupid shit like that. 216.184.122.221

Googlefight: leonardo wins over mickey mouse 23 million to 5 million - Cfitzart 23:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and Jesus beats xxx. Googlefight means NOTHING.

Jesus vrs. TEH PRON!

Possible self portrait?

Possible has been added to the description of the self portrait at the top - Isnt it generally accepted that it is a genuine one? here it says: "Over this drawing there is no dispute with Leonardo thought to have drawn it in 1512, when he was 50 and living in France." Cfitzart 00:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A German expert named Hans Ost has written a book about that matter, claiming that it's a hoax done two centuries ago by the Italian artist Giuseppe Bossi: Hans Ost: "Das Leonardo-Porträt in der kgl. Bibliothek Turin und andere Fälschungen des Giuseppe Bossi", Berlin 1980 Hans Ost believes that this picture is the most accurate portray of Leonardo: http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/leo17.jpg Fulcher 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Some grammer help

This sentence is sitting in the lower half of this article and I can not make sense of what it was supposed to mean. "During his time in France, Leonardo made studies for the Virgin Mary from The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, and many drawings and other studies."

If someone can follow it, please do change the grammer construct for easy readability. gathima 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - just needed to change 'from the Virgin and Child etc' to 'for the V&C etc'. (The sentence is saying he was making studies that were later used in the painting - this should be clear anyway from the fact that the painting's name is marked). PiCo 10:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Incarnate Angel"

Is this really a Leonardo drawing? The only sites that seem to reference it are ones promoting the view that Leonardo was a homosexual, are there any museum sites that mention it? Cfitzart 00:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This from an Italian site:

“The Incarnate Angel”, the hermaphrodite figure from Leonardo’s expert hand, is the centrepiece of an exhibition that has opened at Stia, in Tuscany. Carlo Pedretti, the eminent authority on Leonardo’s work who brought the drawing to light, says that in the eighteen hundreds it formed part of the Royal collection at Windsor where it was kept with another eleven drawings, all by Leonardo and all of an erotic setting. As the British art critic Brian Sewell recalls, one day a well-known German expert arrived at Windsor and began to examine these folios. A while later, they disappeared, to the evident relief of everybody and, so it seems with the tacit agreement of Queen Victoria, happy enough to rid herself of subjects which were, to say the least, embarrassing. So, the group of dissolute works ended up in Germany. For more than a century, then, the “The Incarnate Angel” remained buried in a German collection. At last, in 1991, Pedretti tracked it down, and gained the owners’ permission to show it from time to time in prestigious exhibitions around the world.

You are not seriously suggesting that this is all a gay plot by homophile websites, I hope? Or are you? Haiduc 01:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It just seems a little strange, I havent heard of Leonardo doing erotic drawings before. Cfitzart 13:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know he did several other erotic drawings that usually feature nude males Fulcher 01:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest it looks like an obvious fake to me. There's a change in tone in the paper colour around the genitals area (perhaps previous detail was erased), the genitals look crudely drawn compared to the rest of the figure, worst of all the composition is dreadful with the genitals being an obvious point of focus yet placed right next to the edge of the paper (though Leonardo's notebooks seem to include all sorts of scribbles on edges of pages so perhaps he didn't care too much about composition). The original female figure appears to be holding loose drapery with her left hand which would have partially clothed the bottom half. It looks like a variation on a fairly common pose for the female nude which I believe derives from Praxiteles original nude, the Aphrodite of Cnidus (and also Botticelli's The Birth of Venus), but not an obvious choice if you were intending to display an erect penis.

On the other hand the Italian site (L'articolo di STILEarte) appears to be generally credible and if this drawing really was exhibitted in Tuscany in 2001, you would expect it to have been authenticated. On the third hand, their provenance story sounds rather suspect. -- Solipsist 14:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was that this had to be a fake: it's ugly, seems to me badly drawn, and doesn't accord with my perception of Leonardo as a man who, although homosexual, seems to have hated sex. And the story of the Secret of Windsor Castle seems just a little over the top. Anyway, I did a search on Google, as any good citizen of cyberspace would. Most mentions are on gay sites trying to push an agenda. But this siteis a blog reporting on an Botticelli exhibition at the Louvre in 2003. The Incarnate Angel is mentioned only in passing, which means that the author is either very, very subtle or else he just doesn't care one way or the other. But I guess the real point is that if the Louvre sees fit to exhibit it as a genuine Leonardo, it has some credibility. PiCo 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Da Vinci's name in lists

In a list (e.g. List of biologists, should Leonardo Da Vinci be under D, or V? The lists Da Vinci appears in are inconsistent on this point. GabrielF 04:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

L for Leonardo. The other impossibilities are based on two separate misconceptions, the more important one being that "da Vinci" was somehow Leonardo's surname, as in "Mrs Da Vinci, can Leonardo come out and play?" --Wetman 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Da Vinci's Sleep Habit

It's a popular legend that Da Vinci slept for 15 minutes every 4 hours. A Seinfeld episode was dedicted to kramer attempted to replicate Da Vinci's sleep patterns. I added a few words mentioning this claim, but more should be said about whether it's true or how the legend originated.Alecmconroy 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The earlier reference to Da Vinci sleep got deleted for being weasel-worded (which it most certainly was). So I created a separate article on Da Vinci sleep, which is the name for sleeping 15 minutes every few hours, without taking a stance on whether Da Vinci himself every actually slept this way. I do think at some point the Leonardy Da Vinci article should mention Da Vinci's sleep legend and whether it's true, false, or indetermined, but i'll leave that for future authors :). Alecmconroy 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

"There is some debate whether Leonardo himself painted the Mona Lisa." There is? If no-one can substantiate this claim, I'll delete it. PiCo 10:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it Cfitzart 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone appears to have added a bunch of info taken straight from the Da Vinci Code to the section on the Mona Lisa. I'll remove it for now, since it's taken from a work of fiction. If I am in error, put it back. Sdalmonte 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It would depend how it's treated. I see no problem in a single line statement like: The Mona Lisa plays a central role in Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. PiCo 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, checked the page and it's already done. Please ignore. PiCo 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo passage

Misplaced Pages is absolutely infested with faggots, that's the problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I reverted recently the removal of a passage which seemed to be mostly innuendo about Leonardo's sexuality (Freud's analysis and unproductive pupils). I reverted the removal because it was an undiscussed deletion of a lot of text, but it really isn't a very useful passage. What do others think? DJ Clayworth 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

that was the same text I wanted removed to a different article a while back, after another editor had removed it previously. I think it might be a consensus that it goes Cfitzart 06:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the élan to expunge the man's love life is misguided. I have added more details about his same-sex attractions, and will investigate the claim that he had a thing for Isabella D'Este. I have no investment in his being monosexual, but I do believe that his sexuality is significant, and of interest to our readers. Haiduc 11:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

His sexuality is significant to his art (it does explain a lot the longing you see in it), but not as to justify the length now being given to it. Couldn't it be cut back to something like: "Leonardo's homosexuality had a significant influence on his art..." followed by a very concise explanation of that influence? If anyone wants to go into all this detail it can form a separate article with that cross-link, but at present the article is seriously unbalanced. (I mean unbalanced in the sense of too much detail on the great man's loves, not enough on his works - have a look at the Caravaggio article to see what a well-balanced discussion of the life and achievement of a homosexual artist can look like). PiCo 12:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced, by I think the solution a bit procrustean. Obviously some editors are more focused on his biography than on his art. But the solution is not to remove one particular aspect of his life (especially that one which has been the target of previous suppression), since that would create a more serious imbalance, and suit the agenda of those who would cover up his sexuality. If you must separate things, then put all his personal life in one article, and only his artistic production in another. But a better solution would be to balance the article by expanding on those aspects of this article which are found wanting. Haiduc 20:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if he was gay or not, but the fact so much space in spent itemizing every arguement ever made is going way overboard. More effort is spent on this one topic than any other part in the article, and for a man as accomplished as Leonardo this is rather insulting. Don't get me wrong- I think it's fine to speculate, but not to this length exclusively, and just for the sake of perpetuation of what amounts to largely modern-day inueindo. I get the definite feeling that the author is trying to get across his ideas, instead of a fair accessment of the theory. The ultimate answer is that if you were to ask Leonardo, he'd probably say, "it's none of your damn business". CFLeon 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be that there is a preponderance of material on his personal life, but there are two issues to consider here. The first is that the proper solution is to include more info in the underdeveloped sections, rather than criticize the abundance of information in this one. The second is the process by which this section has been expanded as much as it has. Initially, the discussion of his personal life and sexuality was quite rudimentary, though the spirit of it was as at present. However, in the absence of all this supporting evidence for his love of youths, time and time again the section was challenged as consisting of unsupported statements placed there to make a political point by falsely homosexualizing the great man. In order to answer these continuous challenges, the discussion of his sexuality expanded to the present size. Thus I would submit that if this section is overdeveloped, it is because it is the muscle most exercised by readers of this article. Haiduc 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Experience has shown that any reference to homosexuality in historical figures on Misplaced Pages needs to be backed by evidence, (even when commonly accepted) or such references are aggressively deleted by the ignorant or homophobic. Engleham

Discovery of Workshop

Any word following up on the news back in January that da Vinci's workshop had been discovered? , , . I commented on it, but then I deleted it. Now I don't remember why. Was the discovery discredited? <>< tbc 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Italicized Part

There is an italicized part in Leonardo's Life section that doesn't make much sense. I suggest that someone should remove it.Tom 17:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

interwiki

why is there a useless interwiki line on the bottom?

I could not guess at which interwiki was being attempted so I removed it. --Alf 08:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

La Scapigliata

(Newbie alert): This is a rather well-known work of LDV, one can buy posters of it, anyway. Perhaps it should be mentioned in here?

• Old requests for peer review