Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Vegetarian

Da Vinchi was a vegetarian and he even had his own personal vegetarian chef. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.52.128 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2009 (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 ^{T • C} 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 Nfgii (talk · contribs), 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 Wikipedia 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)

---

Actually, it is slightly debated whether or not Leonardo da Vinci was left-handed. He could write forwards and backwards with either hand. This is possibly because he was worried about people copying his ideas.--70.72.156.63 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This might be debated by people who have never used a quill. With a quill or metal split nib, it is much easier to write left to right with the right hand, and right to left with the left hand. If Leonardo was left-handed, then he would have to either learn to write with his right hand or manage to write the correct way round with his left. The fact that he could write with his right hand doesn't necessarily indicate that he was not left-handed, or that he was by nature ambidextrous. I can also indicate that a person has been disciplined into writing with their right hand. Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now how about the list of all the Renaissance people? PiCo (talk) 11:19, 17 December 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)

I second that, but I'd like to argue that Leonardo's actual nationality is more important and more interesting a fact than the fact that he was Italian in the geocultural sense. Unless someone objects, I'll rephrase the opening paragraph to include his nationality, and I'll tentatively suggest not including Leonardo's Italian identity in the opening paragraph, to avoid confusion, or at least expressing that Italian is NOT his nationality (arguably, the above original post on Leonardo's nationality goes to show that currently there's a chance of confusion here). 213.243.165.105 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the infobox does claim that his nationality was Italian (as does the infobox of Leonardo's personal life article), which is plain untrue. 213.243.165.105 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 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 Wikipedia: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 [male] lover is united with the [male] 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 Wikipedia 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.[9] 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 Wikipedia 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.[2] 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.[ref]"... 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.[1]. 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[9] 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 Wikipedia author? (remove it)
• although Vasari claims that Leonardo "taught him a great deal about painting",[9] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Contribs 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)

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)

"El Grande", destroyed by loggers, 2002. Here's my pic of what was once the largest (bulkiest, not quite tallest) flowering plant on the planet. The most incredible tree. I couldn't hug it, because of the debris lying around it from other such trees, all those that didn't quite meet the 280 foot mark.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia are preoccupied with factual wealth and factual accuracy, but there are undoubtedly a large number of young and/or undereducated people frequenting Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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'.[citation]" or "Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man has also become ubiquitous in popular culture.[citation]" 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.[cite]"? (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),[2][3] 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.[1] Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian Man is also iconic.[Peacock term] Perhaps fifteen of his paintings survive, the small number due to his constant, and frequently disastrous, experimentation with new techniques, and his chronic procrastination.[nb 2] 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[clarify] only rivalled[Peacock term] by that of his contemporary, Michelangelo.

Leonardo is revered[Peacock term] for his technological ingenuity.[citation needed] 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,[nb 3] 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.[clarify][nb 4] As a scientist, he greatly advanced[citation needed] 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.[Peacock term]

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. [peacock term] This is not a "peacock term. The reasons are imediately explained.
• "Leonardo is revered[Peacock term] for his technological ingenuity.[citation needed]" 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, Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia 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)

Thank you Regents Park!

Response

• Revered for his technological ingenuity. The sentence does not say "was revered". This is not in the past. In the 20th century, Leonardo became "revered for his technological ingenuity".

Firstly, to analyse the word "revered". OED: "hold in or regard with deep respect of veneration". In this case "deep respect" rather than "veneration" (which one could interpret as "worship"). The word is used correctly. "Esteemed" would be the suitable alternative. However, the word "revered" has a sense of mystery about it, which is closer to the sense in which Leonardo is actually viewed. Benjamin Franklin is an esteemed scientist. Leonardo is a revered one.

Secondly, by the mid 1500s, Leonardo was revered as a universal genius. Giorgio Vasari's introduction to his life of Leonardo makes this absolutely apparent. However, the esteem in which he is held as a scientist has grown in the 20th century, not diminsished. This is because his documents have become widely available and subject to study.

• "renowned" is correct. "Known as" simply doesn't say it.
• "powers of invention". It is not only his powers of invention in the fields of science that were extraordinary. His powers of invention as an artist, using the human form, light, composition and atmospheric perspective in entirely new ways were also unprecendented. Too much to say in the intro.
• "One can call him a notable and important inventor without calling him revered, or a very famous artist without using "renowned"." As has been pointed out above by Regents Park, these suggested changes fail to recognise the unique place this man occupies in the collective consciousness.
• "I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know much about the guy at all". I am sure that you are right. You, NovemberMan and Jclemens, are two of the people who obviously don't know much about this guy. But let me just suggest that both of you know a great deal more about this guy than either of you know about Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Verrocchio, Gentile Bellini, Giorgione and Antonello da Messina. These guys were all renowned artists at the time when Leonardo was painting. People like me who have a strong interest in Renaissance painting know their works very well.

I would suggest that although neither of you would recognise a single work by any of these artists, yet both of you would instantly recognise the Mona Lisa. It is because of the very fact that you do know something about this man that you are buying into the article. However, it is perfectly apparent that neither of you have done any research into the subject or have any knowledge of the historical period. If this were the case, then, NovemberMan, you would not make so many naive and inappropriate mistakes in your editting of the article.

• Ibn Al-Haytham and the Islamic point of view. Let's be straight about the fact that this great scholar was Persian, not Arabic. I personally get sick of having the Islamic point of view about everything shoved down my throat. Ibn Al-Haytham was indeed a brilliant scholar and scientist. He is undoubtedly very well known among educated Islamic people, and may even be well known (or even highly revered) among ordinary Islamic people. I don't know whether he is or whether he isn't. Do you know, by any chance, whether ordinary Islamic people have heard the name of Ibn Al-Haytham? What I do know from my own personal knowledge is that Islamic people seem to like TV programs about Leonardo. (This is OR of course).

As far as I am concerned, it's pointless for Islamic scholars to winge about Westerners (and Orientals) revering Leonardo. If they want Westerners to revere a great Islamic scholar, then they need to write books about him in European languages, and make TV programs to equal the BBC's documentaries. If they were to do that, then how would we view Ibn Al-Haytham? Would we see him as beinng up their with Leonardo? or would we would see him as a scientist who made a great contribution to optics, astronomy and mathematics. In other words, the equal of Galileo.

Simply, he is not revered the way that Leonardo is. Leonardo has what writers have called "legendary status". This article needs to make that clear.

• "any unverifiable assumptions about what the general population...". Do you realise that in Hobart, Tasmania, which is the absolute outer limit of human civilisation, there is a paying museum containing sixty (60) full-size recreations of Leonardo's models? This is not Florence, not Vinci, not Milan, not his old home at Clos Luce, not the V&A, not the National Museum of Science in Boston, every one of which has a Leonardo exhibition. This is Tasmania. And at the other end of the world, there is a Leonardo da Vinci Museum in Sweden. Do you know of any other individual (other than a religious leader) who is the subject of so much study and speculation?

PapaNovember, I have recently been plagued by a troll at another website, who naively and simplistically questions the same things over and over again, finding the cleverest ways to twist and contradict and counter every explanation that they are given, and simpy failing to accept the evidence. That troll, Copperstick the stirrer, AKA Glib (so smart with words) disappeared at the same time as you suddenly re-emerged to make the same types of comments about this article. It may be coincidence.

I am obliged by Wikipedia to take you in good faith. So I have been extremely patient. However, if you are genuinely as ignorant of this subject as you appear to be, then go to a library or read one of the 34 million websites that mention "da Vinci", and stop wasting my time. If you are a sock puppet for that other subtlely disruptive imbecile, then piss off! Amandajm (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Amanda, frankly I'm shocked that you're sinking to personal attacks. My message throughout this debate has been similar to that of User:RegentsPark: the nature of the subject may require some superlatives, but they must all be backed up by reliable sources. Why did he receive thanks from you, while I have been referred to as ignorant, naïve and a troll!? I've backed everything up with reference to Wikipedia policy, I've been civil throughout this long-running debate and I will attempt to continue as such. If you check my contributions, you will see that I have been on Wikipedia for three years and that my contributions have spread across a wide range of subjects. I refuse to dignify your accusations of "trolling" with any further response. Finally, no one is wasting your time. No one owns this article or has any obligation to "defend" it personally. You and I are both here of our own free will. I think we've both made our sides of the argument clear, and consensus will hopefully settle this. I'll ask for some more opinions on this at WP:RFC.

Having got that unpleasantness out of the way, could we please stick to the issues? As you have pointed out many times, you know more about Leonardo than me. I have also stated that I have no background in art history. My comments are made as a reader of the article, and as a site administrator with a good knowledge of Wikipedia's policy. I am not debating any of the historical facts in the article, or any of the historical opinions. My issue is only with the inclusion of your own (i.e. not quoted from sources) hyperbolic praise.

In response to your points above, you're still only presenting your own research to back up this hyperbole. As part of your response, you are comparing what you presume a pair of Wikipedia editors know about various artists to back up your use of hyperbole - this really isn't good enough! Once again, everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources, as agreed by User:RegentsPark. Your comments about people enjoying BBC documentaries, the importance of the existence of museums etc are all summarising your own experience. From this, you have deduced (correctly) that Leonardo has a legendary status. However, you are missing the fundamental point here that the truth is not enough for Wikipedia, no matter how "obvious" it is. Everything here must be backed up by sources, especially superlatives. Papa November (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on style of lead section

{{RFCbio }} {{RFCmedia }}

Does the praise in the lead section constitute peacock terminology?

• See the discussion above for background.

• Not sure that I can add much to the above discussion. Leonardo clearly is and extremely important figure and the article should and does make that clear. I think some of the hyperbole should be toned down a little 'infinite' for example. Generaly I would say that what the article needs more in terms of citations for the terms that are justifiably used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Aside from the overheated emotions; (which we all experience here from time to time), I have to agree with Amanda..Leonardo is synonymous with Renaissance Man, Genius, et al..rivaled as an artist only by Michelangelo; and as an artist/genius alongside Vincent Van Gogh, Rembrandt...with Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso bringing up the rear. Exalted company all..Modernist (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• It seems fine to me. I'd personally probably not have used "revered" on stylistic grounds, but I think it is accurate, and Leonardo has a special mystique well beyond those interested in art history, as the type and number of books & documentaries about him show. Raphael is an interesting comparison (see beginning and end of that article). Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo is much more than a notable and important person. He is a real giant. And the most reputable experts in the respective field do support the claim, e.g. Ernst Gombrich, Art and Illusion (1960), (and many others). Homer Simpson , Mickey Mouse, Garfield are irelevant in this discussion.

Sólyomszem (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that all comments so far support the language used to describe Leonardo. The minor points that I originally made (obvious hyperbole and lack of citations) have been attended to and the 'peacock' tags removed. I therefore submit that the matter is now settled and a consensus has been reached. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked only at the current version of the intro, I would say that it is spot on. --Ito Biteme (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the consensus on this. The addition of citations and the slight toning down of the wording has adequately addressed my original concerns. As I stated in my last message to User:Amandajm, I'm now moving on to other topics and leaving this article. I'd like to encourage everyone to pull together and take this vital article through featured article review in the near future. It's very close to the standard, and I'm sure you can do it without too much effort. I won't make any further comments or uninvited edits to the article, but if you need any technical or administrative assistance, let me know. All the best, Papa November (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC Yes, the intro does go a little overboard. Does Leonardo deserve it? If not, he does come close. While I think it may technically be a violation of WP:PEACOCK, I don't see how it detracts from the quality of Wikipedia. Leave be. RayAYang (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Response, To repeat what I have said elsewhere, the statements that are being made are not so much about Leonardo's greatness. They are about his fame. The fame of Leonardo as an all-round "genius" is without precedent. If one is able to quote 11 writers who all state that his fame (and people's fascination with him) is without precedent, then the right words to use are "revered" and "renowned". I find it frankly ridiculous that I have been forced to add the same eleven quotes at the places where these so-called "peacock" words appear. They don't need any justifaction for their use, because the eleven quotations have already been cited above. In the light of Leonardo's fame, these are the right words.

One does not have to go on and on and on justifying the references to the fact that his genius has brought such high regard. Having stated it once, then saying that he is "renowned" as an artist and "revered" as a scientist, mnerely follows on in exactly the same line of thought as the first paragraph. These words are applied because they are, in this specific case, the correct words to apply to this particular individual. They constitute correct usage, not peacock usage in this instance.

As far as I am concerned, the addition of the two extra citations of the 11 quotations are entirely superfluous. They add nothing necessary or useful to the article. What they achieve is to form a distraction which begs the reader look at a citation which adds absolutely nothing. I am not in favour of over-citation, when the statements simply expand what has already been well cited, particularly in the intro. It is poor style to have the intro full of ciatations when the material is fully dealt with, in the body of the article.

The intro doesn't go "overboard". Read Vasari, and read what all those other people say. What you guys who think it is "overboard" and all the rest of it are not taking on board is that there is only one universal genius who is described in such lavish terms. Stop fussing about the introduction, go straight to the bottom of the page are read how lavishly he is described, for yourselves. Then understand that no other person has been perceived in that way.

As I have already written to November Man, this is not about actual achievement. This is about the way he is perceived.

• William Shakespeare widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist.[1] The intro goes on to say that he is "revered" and "hero-worshipped". Is this appropriate, or is it "too peacocky" for the "world's greatest dramatist"?
• Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE—26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] 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. Is it OK to say that Jesus is "revered" or is this too peacocky for Jesus?
• In wider culture the name "Einstein" has become synonymous with genius, and he has since been regarded as one of the most influential people in human history.[4] Does Einstein warrant this peacocky stuff, particularly since the referece cited is not a very convincing one?

My response to these questions is yes in each case. Yes such language is warranted in some instances. RayAYang says above that the language doesn't "detract" from Wikipedia. I'd like to take that statement considerably further and say that if Wikipedia fails to state the extreme importance of a few certain individuals, then Wikipedia is failing as an encyclopedia.

The significance of Jesus, Shakespeare, Leonardo (and some others) in fashioning humanities' perception of itself is in each instance of unique significance. Wikipedia owes it to its public to make this clear in the articles about these people, otherwise how can Wikipedia possibly have any claim to credibility?

Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Before anyone else want to make further comments about this, please read some art history and history books first, to get an idea what you are talking about.

Sólyomszem (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Leonardo, the alleged "self-portrait"

"This drawing in red chalk is widely (though not universally) accepted as an original self-portrait. The main reason for hesitation in accepting it as a portrait of Leonardo is that the subject is apparently of a greater age than Leonardo ever achieved. But it is possible that he drew this picture of himself deliberately aged, specifically for Raphael's portrait of him in The School of Athens".

---

If anyone simply takes the time to compare the alleged chalk drawing in question to finished portraits of Pope Julius II, by Raphael, and a later copy by Titian, they will, no doubt, conclude that the purported "self-portrait" in question is, in fact, a study, (probably executed through means of camera obscura technique) of Pope Julius II.

See:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Leonardo_self.jpg/220px-Leonardo_self.jpg

Then, compare to:

http://www.beniculturali.it/Liocorno/r_giulioII.jpg

In addition, it seems to me to be a neatly circular argument to suggest that Da Vinci may have drawn himself 'deliberately aged' for inclusion in Raphael's School of Athens. This simply assumes that the figure in question in the "School" was meant to be Da Vinci.

Actually, again, if anyone simply takes the time to compare the figure in the School of Athens, (alleged to be that of Da Vinci and Plato), and compares this image to a bust of Pythagoras, the conclusion is, again, inescapable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raffael_067.jpg

Then,compare to:

http://amateurmusicians.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pythagoras.jpg

If I wished to see an excellent image of Da Vinci, I would look carefully at Raphael's "Parnassus".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parnassus

(The figure seated, with arm outstretched, (lower right) gesturing, pointing toward the viewer, bearded, wearing a lavender robe).Tobias316 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours is indubitably a major discovery, but perhaps the proper place to announce it to the world is the Burlingon rather than Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would not characterize my remarks as reflecting a "major discovery", but simply an observation.

I thought that, inasmuch as the Wiki article utilizes this image, (the alleged "self-portrait"), that the Wiki editors might appreciate knowing that the image is undeniably of someone else?

Perhaps it might be better if it were not used at all?

I am not a professional art historian.(Thank God. From what I can see, they are right about as often as my broker).

I confess that I have very little idea of how to properly bring an idea like this into the public arena...And I certainly apologize if you feel my posting of it here was inappropriate. Tobias316 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your posting here wasn't totally inappropriate, but it isn't quite the right place either - it has to do with the scholarly study of Leonardo, and Wikipedia isn't a scholarly outlet. You say that the image is "undeniably" of someone who is not Leonardo, but Wiki editors have to base themselves (I should say, base their edits) on reliable sources, which means, in this case, art historians. In short, if you don't have a reliable source of this the for your observation, we can't use it, even though you might be right. If you'd like to bring it to the attention of the world of art scholarship, you could always try writing a small article about it (preferably very short) and showing it to someone with a request for their comments - but don't use words like "indubitably", it strikes the wrong tone (just as my attempt at humorous prose in my first reply struck the wrong tone - sorry about that). PiCo (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your point, entirely, but with respect, each of us is empowered to rely upon our own senses and mental abilities, and our ability to recognize facial characteristics is a fundamental aspect of human nature. As I said, simply look at the images and decide for yourself. Observation, I believe, is the first step in the scientific method, is it not?

If you wish to suggest that I should submit a scholarly article before deciding whether to shave the face I see in the mirror in the morning, I would suggest that you are elevating form over substance, as well as furthering the very process which created this mistaken identity, this absurdity, in the first place. I believe that each of us is entitled to look at the two images and make a determination of whether we accept the conventional consensus, or not. And, in this case, identification is relatively easy.

A close examination of the two images, side-by-side, reveals a distinctive and telling imperfection, or cyst on the left (as you face it) of the nose. It shows up in the chalk drawing and on the finished portraits by Raphael and Titian.

I don't think that I suggesting that my interpretation be accepted and posted.

What I am questioning, however, is whether this image should be used, at all, given its highly dubious pedigree. You see, my argument goes to its removal, not the substitution of my interpretation.

Wiki articles are often the first cites to appear when searching the internet. An image search for Leonardo Da Vinci will invariably produce the alleged "self-portrait".

And that is why I suggest that one simply rely on their own faculties. If you simply download an image of the Raphael (or, better Titian copy) and compare that to the "self-portrait" and do not see the similarity...then, I suppose, you should continue to display the image, but I don't think that you need the permission of a consensus of scholars to make an editorial decision to remove the image.

(And, in the event that my frustration has given offense, I apologize for the remark concerning art historians, but I simply fail to see how this identification could have been made in the first place. And, in addition, that a similar situation exists in regard to images of Isabelle d' Este. So, of two of the most influential figures of the Renaissance, art historians have managed to mistakenly identify both. In my opinion).

PS(I didn't use the word "indubitably", I used the word "undeniably". But I would suggest that anyone who looks at the two images and does then deny the similarity, probably is engaged in some form of intellectual self-deception. It is that strikingly clear).Tobias316 (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "As PiCo said, we are locked into using written texts. The chalk drawing is widely accepted as a self portrait, (and has been for a very long time, more than 200 years but I'm not sure how long, off the top of my head) so we state that here. And also say that this is questioned. Regardless of personal opinion or personal research, that is the referenced opinion".

I understand that, and thank you. Please see my reply to 'Pico', above. This isn't a written text, however.Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Re your suggestion that the portrait, whoever it may be, was done using the camera obscura technique. This is pure specualtion on your part, and the use of the word "probably" is seriously out of place. It's unlikely that a painter with excellent hand-eye co-ordination and a great knowledge of human anatomy would bother to fuss about with a camera obscura for a portrait sketch. However, if one wants a self portrait to be the right way round, one needs two mirrors".

Yes, it is admittedly speculation on my part, as is your conjecture, counter-argument, concerning the technique employed. But Da Vinci, I believe, is known to have used the camera obscura technique, and I say "probably", because of the near-photographic quality, detail of the image.Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Identification of the two central figures in Raphael's School of Athens. There is absolutely no doubt that they represent Plato and Aristotle. The certainty for this is because each carries a book, inscribed with the name of the work of the philosopher".

And this carrying of books? You know for a fact that this the thought that Raphael intended to convey? Or, is this, perhaps, an assumption on your part? Is it conceivable, that he might have not intended that conclusion?Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Plato is represented as having a long beard. Of the oldest sculptural representation of Pythagoras, some show him as younger, with a short beard and a full head of short hair. The one that you reference is a very stylised image of a philosopher. I'm drawn to wonder why they associate it with Pythagoras at all. Also, the original nose has been broken, so the present one is a very simple, Classical-style replacement. It isn't good evidence either for how Aristotle really looked, or even how he was traditionally thought to look".

Nonetheless, (and not agreeing or disagreeing with the above), the association with the "chalk drawing" is somewhat perplexing, as the figure in the chalk drawing has no moustache whatever.Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• "More about "The School of Athens". It was the philosophies of Plato, specifically, that were drawn on the the establishment of "Neo-Platonic" philosophy during the Rennaissance. This is why he occupies such a significant position in that painting".

Yes, and that is, again, an assumption based upon entirely circular reasoning. Actually, the work is properly known as "Knowledge of Causes". By insisting that the central theme is neo-Platonism and not neo-Pythagoreanism, the art world has neatly demonstrated their ignorance of the "Knowledge of Causes" and made proper identification of the figures and proper interpretation nearly impossible. The figures of Plato and Pythagoras are simply reversed. The overall message is the impact of Pythagorean thought.

More than a bit of a tangent, here, but there are clear references within the "School of Athens" to Mantegna's Parnassus. It is "quoted", in a sense, there is a direct reference to it. (You might say that it is "incorporated by reference").

A figure traditionally identified as Strabo or Ptolemy,(lower right) wears a crown and golden robes colored identically to King Solomon, who is depicted in a ceiling panel directly above the figure.

A famous comment concerning the work asserts that there is nothing "esoteric" involved, and yet the central figure, the lady in white, whom no one seems able to identify, upon close inspection, is revealed to have a green foot!

Please excuse me if I am unable to swallow, whole, the interpretation that has been previously put forward. Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• The image in "Parnassus". an "excellent image of Leonardo"?

Yes, in my opinion.Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is a man who is much more like the man in the red chalk drawing than the Raphael portrait of Julius II is like the red chalk drawing".

No. The man in the red chalk drawing is bald.There are other clear images of Julius II by Raphael. See the Mass at Bolsena, for instance. That is the man in the chalk drawing. (Julius II also appears in the Disputation, raphael, Stanze, without beard, as a monk, lowest left).

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/78/93178-004-921ED35E.jpg

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Rooms#The_Mass_at_Bolsena. Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Why? Compare the bushy eyebrows with the bushy eyebrows in the drawing (and the comparative sparesness of Julius' eyebrows) the thick growth of beard below the lip (Julius has a bare patch), the growth of whiskers on the cheeks (Julius' beard grows in an entirely different manner). All this leads me to think that you might be right in thinking that the Parnassus figure is the same man as the one in the red chalk drawing. And may indeed be the same man painted in the School of Athens. The face of Julius is softer and somewhat rounder in the cheeks. His beard growth is quite different. However, he may have had his eyebrows trimmed and his cheeks partly shaved, to clean him up for the Raphael portrait. The straight line of his beard growth suggests that this has happened".

You really need, to my view, at least, to very carefully and seriously examine and compare the two. It requires some considerable time and effort. In addition to a telltale cyst, or blemish of some sort on the left (as you face it) side of the nose, the "V" pattern of the beard below the lower lip,(that is to say, the "V" made by the unshaven portion) visible in the Raphael and Titian portaits is faintly visible, can just barely be made out, in the chalk drawing. Also compare the overall facial structure, dimensions and proportions, as well as what little hair that is remaining...compare to the image in the Mass at Bolsena.

I agree that the expression, particularly of the eyes, has been softened in the finished portraits. If the chalk drawing is as accurate as I suspect, then you certainly have a good indication of why Julius II was known as "il terrible". Speculation, again, on my part, but probably smart to soften that somewhat. Tobias316 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In support of the notion that the chalk drawing represents Julius:

the small highlight which Raphael painted on his right cheekbone, and which may indicate a blemish of some sort. The Leonardo drawing, which is much more detailed than the painting, shows a blemish on the man's cheekbone.

Michelangelo's Moses has always been taken as a portrait of Julius. (It was carved for his tomb). It has many of the characteristics of the Leonardo drawing. Amandajm (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that the figure in Raphael's Parnassus is more consistent with other cultural depictions of Da Vinci. In particular, the sometimes alleged association with the figure in the Last Supper, second from right. If you take all these other alleged "sightings" into account, looking at them as a group, for consistency, then, the one that stands out as not belonging, is the chalk drawing. Please see the images at the bottom of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci

Another image of Da Vinci is, I believe, to be found in Costa's Court of Isabelle d' Este. (Seated, wearing a turban, hands in lap, to her right, left, as viewed).

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/c/costa/isabella.html

(And, by the way, the figure's robes in the Parnassus happen to be colored identically to those of the figure I have identified as Pythagoras in the "School").Tobias316 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo's portrait

(Just starting a new section because the one above getting cumbersome.)

Firstly, your manner is becoming quite unnecessisarily rude, particularly since I've read your ideas without simply dismissing them, despite the nasty things you have to say about Art Historians in general. However, this is really a bit much: And this carrying of books? You know for a fact that this the thought that Raphael intended to convey? Or, is this, perhaps, an assumption on your part? Is it conceivable, that he might have not intended that conclusion?

T: I am truly sorry if my comments have given personal offense. (Are you an art historian)? I did realize that I was becoming a bit strident in my remarks and offered a sort of anticipatory, preemptive apology, if you noticed. I apologize again. The comments were more out of frustration than anything. I truly appreciate your interest and your replies to my comments. The comment about the carrying of books was not intended to be offensive, or demeaning, but simply to suggest that in interpreting symbols, one should be careful. I was aware of the traditional interpretation there and I was merely suggesting to you that there, might, in fact, be other viable interpretations. It really was not meant to be insulting. Sorry. And I really don't think there is anything here to get upset about, and I consider this to be a very minor issue. In any event, these comments were not directed at you, personally. I am self-aware enough to realize how some of my remarks must have sounded. Sorry, again. This is my first foray into the world of Wiki...I did not mean to be rude, I assure you. I am used to very direct expression of ideas...challenging.

But, as an illustration of the problem, as I mentioned, there is, in the lower right corner of the "School", a figure wearing a crown, holding a globe. It strikes me as curious that the fact that the figure clearly is wearing a crown should be ignored, in favor of the globe, because that apparently helped rationalize the identification as a geographer, despite the obvious reference to royalty.

Especially when there is a depiction of Solomon directly above. (I mis-spoke in regard to this earlier, the ceiling panel above does depict the Judgment of Solomon. But there is another work by Raphael depicting the Judgment of Solomon wherein the robes of Solomon are colored identically). And the point is that the mistaken identification may result in a beautiful metaphor being missed...(Solomon holding forth the earth as the "baby"). Seems to me to be an exercise in "pounding a square peg into a round hole", trying to force the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle with a mallet. I just don't understand how this sort of thing gets repeated and accepted and then becomes a major obstacle to understanding.

And the business about how Leonardo might have drawn himself prematurely aged? Why? Didn't Da Vinci think that Raphael was up to the task, himself? And then, Rapahael decides to paint Leonardo with a moustache, despite Leo's drawing? It's silly, isn't it? And shouldn't alarm bells be sounding when presented with an explanation this painfully and obviously contorted? Isn't the simpler, eminently more logical conclusion that it just isn't Da Vinci?

Again, the figure that is considered to be Michelangelo, in the "School", seated, holds a quill and poised above a jar of ink. Is this not a good indication that this person is a writer? Could it be Castiglione, instead? You see, I think it entirely possible that the books were not meant to identify the figures. That's all. Tobias316 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A:"Let me repeat that we try to use accepted and referenced opinions, rather than our own. My opinion (and yours) are not acceptable in the article. Your opinion of whether the drawing represents Leonardo or Pope Julius carries no weight in Wikipedia terms. You have to find a good published source that supports you. And then, it still remains just an opinion, different from the generally accepted one. No, I'm not about to delete the lead pic".

T: I think that you are misinterpreting my intent in raising the issue...or, perhaps, I am not expressing it particularly well. I respect your decision.

I think that you have very good sources to fall back upon to justify your use of the image, if you so choose. But I don't think that requires you to then, include the image. There are other options, I would suggest, including no image at all. For what it is worth, the other Wiki site that I referred to, the Cultural Depictions, has chosen what seems to me to be a very sensible approach...acknowledge the image and the controversy, but not display the image.

In other words, I think that the traditional authorities should be interpreted to say that you can exhibit the image with support...but they do not mean that you should. And, I would suggest, hopefully respectfully, that the question should be whether the inclusion of the image adds, or actually detracts, from furthering knowledge and understanding.

And that is where I am suggesting that reliance on your own faculties should prevail. It will take time to bring about a proper analysis of whether it is, in fact, Julius in the chalk drawing. What I am suggseting, though, is that each of us, because of the internet, can now come to our own judgment in the interim.

In the course of doing some private research, I thought I might have realized something of value, and simply wished to bring it to the attention of those who might be interested.Tobias316 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The various "Cultural representations".

The oval picture of Leonardo in the hat is a 19th century engraving based on a painting that is based on the drawing. The first engraving, with his beard sideways, from an encyclopedia, takes its form from a late 18th or early 19th century painting of the dying Leonardo attended by the King of France.

• The "School of Athens". That's how Vasari referred to it. Vasari, writing in the 1500s, says that Plato and Aristotle are carrying the Timaeus and the Ethics. The titles are visible in the painting. Of course, I suppose that Pythagoras might be lugging around Plato's book, in order to get a good argument going, but just the same, it defies conventional logic that Raphael would have depicted him like that!

T: Well, I don't know whether it defies "conventional logic", or not...but you see, that is exactly what I am trying to do, here. Defy conventional logic, that is.

• And, pardon my ignorance, but I thought it was Aristotle who wrote about "The Knowledge of Causes", and that Plato also had much to say on the subject of "Knowledge".
• but there are clear references within the "School of Athens" to Mantegna's Parnassus. Well, there are indeed two central figures surrounded by many other figures. The similarities don't seem to go much further than that.

T: I would suggest that they do, in fact. (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit blurry as to which Parnassus you are referring to in your other comments. The Muse who accompanies Apollo is Thalia, the Muse of Laughter. This would be the mythological identity of the figure. I have no idea whether (in Raphael's pic) she has ever been identified with any Renaissance person.

T: Sorry, I am not following this.Tobias316 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Green feet. During the Renaissance (and earlier) green was often used as underpainting for human flesh. The flesh tints were then applied, more opaquely in the light areas, and transparent in the shadows. It is not uncommon for green to show through. Green is still often used when painting shadows on human flesh. How green is this foot, exactly? I take it that you are referring to Mantegna's painting in this case.

T: No, I am referring to the foot of the lady in white in the "School". Her foot appears to be green. She appears to be clutching, grasping, something...but nothing is there. Or, is there? Tobias316 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Green feet... Take another look! There are half a dozen characters in that painting wearing tight-fitting toeless boots, some of which are green! Amandajm (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tobias (response):

Thanks, but I have already done that. Sorry to disagree, but there are, in fact, only four figures with this sort of legging visible in the 'School'. In each case, the legging is brown, not green, and the straps that suggest this device are clearly visible.

As I said above, look at the lady in white. You see one hand on her shoulder. The other appears to be clutching nothing whatever. If you are able to understand what it is that she is clutching, then perhaps, you will be able to understand why her foot is green. (and perhaps, also, why two of the figures' leggings bear symbols and what they mean).

This was only mentioned as an illustation of the mistaken identifications within the School of Athens. The mere mention of the School of Athens was only tangential to the mistaken identification fo Julius II.

• So, I don't see much to be gained from continuing this discussion, particularly in light of the fact that you seem unwilling to even acknowledge the obvious similarities between the chalk drawing and the portraits of Julius II.

• Response Your arrogance is extraordinary in light of the fact that I responded to this on your talk page, not wanting to continue the pedantry on the topic of Raphael's painting on this page. Go and read your talk page. And set up your own blog, because this is not the right place to air your theories. Amandajm (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

T's response:

Yes, this is why I suggest that this discussion is unlikely to produce anything of further value.

It does seem to me, however, that you unfortunately regard disagreeing comments as "rudeness" and are quick to take exception to simple expressions of opinion and respond with ad hominem attacks, rather than address the substance of the matter.

I also notice, in regard to 'pedantry' that you are quick to lecture, as if others were not able to read for themselves...and I noticed, particularly, your statement to the effect that you considered yourself gracious for not "dismissing" me outright. Very nice of you.

I was, if you bothered to notice, responding to yourissues concerning the School of Athens, which I regard as an ancillary issue, altogether.

And yet, you still refuse to acknowledge the obvious similarities between the chalk drawing and the portraits of Julius II, while on my talk page, apparently claiming that you noticed this first.

(Odd, to say the least). And might I suggest that if you are going to offer 'corrections', that you might at least, be correct when making 'corrections'? Otherwise, others may seem 'arrogant' to you when pointing out that your 'corrections' were not, in fact, correct.

Thanks very much for your interest and replies.Tobias316 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Tobias316 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If, however, you wish to see a good example of what I mean in regard to the School of Athens, I would suggest that you look at the figure, typically identified as Parameindes, lower left, gesturing to book, foot on rock (petrus) and compare to Michelangelo's statue of St Peter, Siena Domo.

http://www.boomerinthepew.com/images/2008/08/11/st_peter_siena_eur.jpg

Tobias316 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tobias316 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Camera Obscura. The fact that the drawn portrait is accurate is no indication that he used a camera obscura. In fact, it is most unlikely. Firstly the camera obscura does not lend itself to studying or producing that type of image. Secondly, Leonardo's skills as a draftsman were such that it is positively insulting to suggest that he needed some mechanical means, other that his eyes, his hand and a drawing tool in order to produce a likeness, or a highly accurate picture. Proportion was one of the things that he was very interested in.

Amandajm (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

T: Very valid points, I think. Agreed. Pure, raw speculation on my part, as I acknowledged earlier.

No comments on my compiled images of Julius versus the chalk drawing? Tobias316 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to something that is jammed in the middle of this discussion.

What I find arrogant, specifically, is this: So, I don't see much to be gained from continuing this discussion, particularly in light of the fact that you seem unwilling to even acknowledge the obvious similarities between the chalk drawing and the portraits of Julius II.

I have not been unwilling to acknowledge the similarities. Having looked at the Leonardo "self protrait" and the Raphael portrait of Julius II (or copies), and the Michelangelo statue of Moses, and the Raphael School of Athens for many years, I am well aware that the images of the pope and the portrait said to be Leonardo are of similar old men with log flowing beards. There are not very many portraits of old men with long beards like that who were alive around 1510. It would therefore be difficult not to associate them. I made no claim to have noticed it first; that would be a quite inappropriate claim as it is something which has almost certainly been noticed by others. Amandajm (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Leonardo da Vinci's Personal Life for those interested in his vegetarianism

Hi Amanda,

When I was making changes regarding Leonardo's vegetarianism it occurred to me that many people reading the brief mention of the subject in the main article wouldn't realize that more information was available on the subject by clicking on the link to the Leonardo da Vinci's personal life article at the top of the section. I therefore thought it would be a good idea to add an additional link after the vegetarian comment with the link labeled "More information on Leonardo's vegetarianism can be found at the link to the main article given at the top of this section titled "Leonardo da Vinci's personal life" I made the change on Nov. 9. I noted you removed it on Nov. 11 with the comment: "removd superfluous statement, because the link to the main article is all that's needed." If the additional link was indeed superfluous, then it should make no difference. All that was needed then was a scientific experiment to determine if the link was superfluous or not. Leonardo would be delighted with such an approach! Information to make such a determination is in fact available, and it did indeed turn to make an enormous difference. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia article traffic statistics are available. I noted that on Nov. 9 traffic to the personal life page shot up, and that on the 10th and 11th, traffic to the site was at it's highest for the month to date (as of Nov 29th). There may have also been repeat visits, for the next 3 days were also among the most trafficked for the month. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/Leonardo_da_Vinci%27s_personal_life

Is it correct that the reason the personal life section is separated from the main article is to keep the main article from becoming to long? Based on the rise in traffic when the link to Leonardo's vegetarianism was available, and the additional evidence that there is considerable interest in his vegetarianism as evidenced by the fact that there are over 1 million google hits for "da vinci" AND "vegetarian," it does indeed seem that it is not only not superfluous, but useful based on audience interest to re-insert the removed link. Do you object? Respectfully and best wishes for the new year, ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)ExplorerMMVIII

Personally, I think such directions are useful. However, it's not considered good Wikipedia style to have anything more than just the link to the additional article at the top of the section.

The other problem is that if you write a sentence saying that there is more about his vegetarianism here, then we need to put similar directions to every part of his life that is dealt with elswhere. That is very cluttering and distracting. There must be a way around this! Amandajm (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Newly discovered sketches found on "The Virgin and Child with St. Anne"

Hello to all. I've just updated this page with new information I had found in today's New York Post (December 19, 2008) at this website:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12192008/news/worldnews/amazing_sketches_on_flip_side_of_da_vinc_144952.htm

My suggestion is that maybe someone could obtain a digital image of said painting on this webpage. Thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! Some info was added to this page as well, which I have now moved to the Virgin and Child with St Anne page and combined. Very exciting. Amandajm (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Moveable or Movable

I've been thinking about weather or not, this should be edited. So the question is, should the following sentence below have the word "Moveable" changed to Movable?

"When he fled to Venice in 1499 he found employment as an engineer and devised a system of movable barricades to protect the city from attack."

The Merriam-Webster only lists Movable

--Rttam (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct English spellings. However "moveable" is generally used in English law, while "movable" is probably more common. do you really want it changed?

Amandajm (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)