Talk:Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk

Musei Reali Torino

The Musei Reali Torino has published at https://www.museireali.beniculturali.it/opere/autoritratto-testa-di-vecchio/ a description "autoritratto" (self-portrait) and a paragraph of history that refers to the publication of the drawing in a book at the beginning of the nineteenth century. However, it does not engage in the "portrait of an old man" / "portrait in red chalk" naming debate. The museum does not indicate references for the universality of acceptance of its description, but they hold the drawing for the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halteres (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Identity of the man in red chalk

It's Pope Julius II.

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

Tobias316 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of: Red Chalk Drawing (attributed to da Vinci), to: Portrait of Julius II (Titian)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias316 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of: Detail of Red Chalk Drawing (attributed to Leonardo da Vinci)--to: Detail from Portrait of Pope Julius II (Titian)

Tobias316 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of detail--from "red chalk portrait" (attributed to Leonardo da Vinci)--to: detail of drawing of Pope Julius II (attributed to Raphael, Chatsworth House, coll.).

Tobias316 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Identity of Man is UNCERTAIN

There has been recent discussion in the field about whether the article really is Leonardo.

Deleting the existence of such discussion is nothing short of vandalism. It is biased and advocates one part of the debate while completely ignoring another.

I personally believe the drawing is indeed of Leonardo, but it is extremely incorrect to claim it as a consensus and ignore the evidence to the contrary as the user is doing.

I suggest changing this page to protected if the other user continues to make edits of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.126.2 (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

It is one thing to say that some people do not believe it is Leonardo and another to say it is not universally accepted to be his portrait. I have mentioned this in several talk pages that are obviously yours. The current article contains a section on controversy. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ADDING YOUR OPINION AND DELETING ACTUAL EVIDENCE. THINGS LIKE: "IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS LEONARDO"S PORTRAIT". That is just putting opinion on facts. Instead, you simply write that there are people who suggest this portrait is Leonardo's father or uncle, this is currently written in the article. (and of which there is evidence that these people claim this although again, it should not be emphasized since they are obviously the exception).

And yes, this article should be protected against people like YOU. Read its history. You are obviously the same person that edited this article to add opinion on how much it is or isn't accepted.

I have looked at this article's history and there were 'sources' added that DO NOT mention anything related to the controversy.

In addition. This article is on Leonardo's a portrait of a man in red chalk. It is not on other possible portraits of Leonardo, so there is no need to talk about these in this article. If you believe they are related to this topic, add a Related Articles version, and link other portraits of Leonardo. There are hundreds of wikipedia pages in which this is done.

The only person here with an agenda is you, I have no problem if you mention other people's views as long as they are REFERENCED!!! If the reference you add does not mention what you are saying then it is absolutely legal to delete it. Get that in your head. Walnut77 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will revamp the article with several sources when I get the chance in a couple weeks, though I'm pretty busy until then. I actually never added any sources myself, and it's cute that you get so offensive and try to claim other people are me with 0 evidence. What I did is go back to a version of the page from a few months ago that included the discussion (before I even knew about this subject) and reverted to it. In my courses, we learn that it is not universally accepted.

Regardless, the page is fine as is with the sources, but it will be changed when I get the chance (unless the couple other people do it first).

129.2.129.108 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey,

I don't see anything cute in you so it isn't mutual sorry. If you use the word universally, it better be in the sources you name. If this isn't there then it will e changed. The article currently contains good sources, these cannot be changed. You can certainly add additional information that is referenced, there is no problem there.

Walnut77 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lucan portrait--doubt and uncertainty

I would suggest that the issue of the doubt and debate over whether the 'red chalk drawing' is actually a representation of Leonardo, or some other individual, should probably also take note of the so-called "Lucan" portrait...and the existence of that portait and the issues it presents might also well be included in this article. They are necessarily intertwined, in my opinion.

(And I certainly agree with those expressing the existence of the debate. I stated my belief that the man in the 'red chalk drawing' is actually Pope Julius II as fact because that is a conclusion that I have come to and I believe is entirely defensible. I recognize that is not currently a consensus opinion).

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

And, perhaps it might be particularly worthwhile (especially for the person who keeps deleting references to the controversy involving the portraits entirely)...to take note of the following, from the Wiki article on the 'Lucan' portait:

"The recreated three-dimensional image was compared with other images believed to represent Leonardo da Vinci, including the iconic red chalk in Turin, the profile drawing believed to be by Leonardo's pupil Francesco Melzi, the painted portrait in the Uffizi and the recently discovered image in the Codex on the Flight of Birds. A conclusion was that all the images, but one, reveal a face that is elongated in the lower two thirds. The image that did not comply was the red chalk so-called self-portrait in Turin, considered by some to be of Leonardo in old age". (My emphasis).

In other words, it is the 'red chalk drawing' that is 'odd man out'...doesn't agree with other probable and known images of Leonardo...and is, on the basis of physical observation alone...highly suspect.

Opinions, no matter how many times they are published, or accepted by "the consensus", are not evidence.

Tobias316 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Tobias316 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

That is great you want to observe things that aren't there. The two images are not the same, Leonardo has a different nose and different eyes. The portrait of a man in red chalk has these features more than the plato image.

What two images are not the same? What image are you referring to as "Leonardo"? You do understand that a (mis)identification of the Plato figure as being the red chalk man plays an important part in this ridiculous mess, don't you? My point in showing the similarity to the figure in 'Vocation of the Apostles'...is that it could easily be that same figure or any other balding guy with a beard. Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that it is not? Have you noticed that the red chalk man has no moustache? And Plato does? The point that I am attempting to illustrate is about the uncertainty and doubt surrounding the red chalk drawing and the questionable logic of the identifications it depends upon...as the topic heading clearly states.

Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing. Are there any renown art history teachers/students etc. that suggest this? I have no problem if they do as long as there is evidence for it is perfectly acceptable to put this as possibilities as long as you reference it (and the reference should obviously be respectable). This article is on this specific painting by Leonardo, though, and not on Plato or any other painting.

Yes. Look at the topic heading that refers to the 'Lucan' portrait and its contents. As I have stated, above, analysis of that work along with the red chalk drawing, and the portrait in the Uffizi concluded that it is the red chalk drawing that is the least likely to be an accurate representation of Leonardo's features.

In other words, there is more than considerable doubt as to whether the red chalk drawing is of Leonardo. The available evidence (not opinion) suggests otherwise.

Ignoring that, and removing references to that, is an ill-advised attempt to 'bully' one point of view. I assume that it is you doing this?

If so, PLEASE stop it. Removing references to the debate is not providing accurate information.

Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are related wikipedia articles that talk about this painting, they can be linked in a Related Articles section.

Walnut77 (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But the content of the 'Lucan' article bears directly on the issue of doubt and uncertainty concerning the red chalk drawing here. The 'Lucan" portrait is of another person entirely ...other than the one in the red chalk drawing. The two images are mutually exclusive. If I understand, the debate concerning the 'Lucan' portrait is only concerned with whether it is a self-portrait. That certainly would lead to a conclusion that the red chalk drawing is an image of someone other than Leonardo. But it is kind of pointless to include that information here if it is just going to be removed.

Tobias316 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

You are not supposed to break up my comment that way... Do you have references that you can link here in this conversation so I can also take a look at them. You said that there are important and renown art history teachers/students that suggest this, please link the information. I do not see the direct influence of the Lucan portrait, information on that portrait can be written on THAT article's page. I think it is only logical. You can mention the Lucan and then link it in the related article. Why would you make an article on this red chalk painting and talk about the Lucan portrait? it is redundant.

Walnut77 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You what? READ the Wiki article that I supplied the link to, please.

You don't see the "direct influence of the Lucan portrait"? Did you bother to read the piece at all? The Lucan portrait is of someone other than the man in the red chalk drawing. And the Lucan portrait has been determined to be a portrait of Leonardo. So, the red chalk drawing MUST be of someone else. Get it? The identification of one bears directly on the other.

Again...you are apparently deleting material contributed by others that refers to the controversy surrounding the identification of the drawing in red chalk as if no such debate or dispute exists. You seem to want to state that the red chalk drawing is a "selfie"...as a matter of undisputed, objective fact. And that, at best, is misleading. Inaccurate. The identity of the sitter has long been disputed.

IF you bothered to read the text of the Wiki piece on that portrait...(link was supplied)...you should be able to grasp that the EVIDENCE has been analyzed and the red chalk drawing has been determined to NOT likely represent the features of Leonardo. It does NOT agree with other known and probable portraits. This is direct evidence...primary source material...not secondary OPINION sources from "respectable" entities like the Huffington Post. (Sarcasm intended).

Now, no one, I don't think, is asking you to accept or even consider that the red chalk drawing is not really Leonardo...but are simply asking you, politely, hopefully, to stop removing material which suggests that the identity of the sitter is not a complete certainty.

Now, why is that a problem for you? Clearly, the controversy not only exists...but the weight of the available evidence suggests that it is NOT Leonardo.

Tobias316 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I do not know who you are, and what your credentials are in order to make such claims. You have to understand, nobody in the internet does. It is for this reason that sources are used to refer to people who DO have the credentials, who have extensively studied this and suggest alternatives to topics. You cannot simply write about what you think is a similarity between two people if you do not have any qualification to do so. I am not bullying a point of view, I have added a controversy section in the article. You cannot, though, add information that is opinionated. If you have references in which people who have studied the subject have suggested what you are saying then you can reference it and mention it. There is no need to add opinion to facts. Period.

Walnut77 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My comments here, addressed to you, were only meant to demonstrate to you some measure of doubt that does exist concerning the identity of the man in the red chalk drawing, so that you will, hopefully stop what appears to be an incredibly wasteful campaign of attempting to censor the thoughts and contributions of others. I do not know who you are, either, but from the list of your interests on your user page, it would appear that your interests run more to the physical sciences than the humanities or social sciences. Perhaps you are not particularly accustomed to some of the constructs involved in those fields of study?

But understand this...personal observations and logic DO play an integral role in this type of process. As does, hopefully, reason and logic.

Appeals to "authority" may make you more comfortable...but there is a hierarchy of evidentiary sources. Opinion is NOT evidence.(Even if it comes from the Huffington Post).

Tobias316 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I do not know if you understand the things that I write. It seems that you do not. YOUR opinion means nothing unless you back it up with people who are experts in the subject (this means it should have been published somehow). No where in this article is my opinion being expressed, if it is I want you to quote the part that is. The changes I have made to this article are not CENSORING so do not manipulate. I have explained this several times. I have deleted the information because it is not found in the sources that were provided. If you find sources from people who are qualified and certified to make those claims, then show them (I already asked you for this and you have not provided them). Again, opinion by expert people IS valuable (because they have had to peer-review their conclusions). On the other hand, YOUR opinion is not valid unless you have published this with evidence (which means you would have had to have proven the information you provided). It is as simple as that, I am not censoring you, I am deleting information that is NOT true!

Walnut77 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You state, again and again, that the red-chalk drawing IS a self-portrait of Leonardo. You state this as fact.

This IS opinion. Citing published sources that quote that OPINION does NOT magically elevate opinion into objective fact.

No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition, this is not a philosophical matter, by true is meant what we hold as truths today (these things can change with new discoveries obviously). What we consider valuable truths today is what has been published and accepted by people who are experts in certain subjects. These people have had to work very hard to do this (to research, study and publish their work) as they must endure a lot of criticism by colleagues until their work is sound. This is the kind of evidence I am asking you to provide.

Besides, the current state of the article DOES provide your point of view. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY SECTION I HAVE TOLD YOU THAT. This means it does say that some people have suggested that the identity of the sitter has been questioned. I do not know what you are complaining about. If there are other suggestions MADE BY EXPERTS that have been made as to the identify of the sitter (right now the sources stated it could be his father), then also add them BY CITING THE SOURCE!

A WIKI ARTICLE IS NOT EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE IS A BOOK, A PUBLISHED SOURCE IN THE INTERNET THERE ARE MILLIONS OF THOSE! LINK THEM!

Walnut77 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not cite the Wiki article to you for inclusion in the article. I cited it to you so that you might try to come to some appreciation of the existence of the controversy which you seem to want to continually deny.

Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

AND NO! The Lucan portrait is a portrait that some people believe to have been BY leonardo NOT OF LEONARDO!!! And experts have suggested it is a forgery. SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AND YOU KNOW WHY THIS CONFUSION IS OCCURRING? BECAUSE YOU DO NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE/SOURCES! How many times do I have to say this??

Experts do not agree that the Lucan is BY LEONARDO. On the other hand, the red chalk painting has been proven to be by him. This is the huge difference!

Walnut77 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The issue involving the Lucan portrait is whether it is a self-portrait or not.

Again...PLEASE read the article and the section on comparisons of the known and probable likenesses that I keep repeating.

The red-chalk drawing is the one whose features do NOT agree with the others.

Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm NO!

This is directly from the article (which is still a wikipedia article and should be backed by evidence!

"The Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci is a late 15th - early 16th century portrait of a man that was recently discovered in a cupboard of a private house in Italy. It strongly resembles a portrait of Leonardo da Vinci held by the Uffizi Gallery and regarded by experts as a forgery."

THIS MEANS IT IS NOT EVEN CERTAIN IT IS BY LEONARDO!!! WHETHER IT IS LEONARDO OR NOT SHOULD NOT EVEN MATTER IF YOU CANNOT EVEN PROVE IT IS BY HIM!!

ON THE OTHER HAND THIS IS THE RED CHALK PAINTING AND WITH REFERENCE:

"The drawing has been drawn in fine lines, shadowed by hatching and executed with the left hand, as was Leonardo's habit. The paper has brownish "fox marks" caused by the accumulation of iron salts due to moisture. It is housed at the Royal Library (Biblioteca Reale) in Turin, Italy, and is not generally viewable by the public due to its fragility and poor condition. “Researchers have developed a nondestructive way to gauge the condition of the drawing by quantifying the chromophores in the paper, the culprit behind its yellowing. Their technique, described in Applied Physics Letters (2014), will be used to assess the rate at which the image is degrading and to estimate its life expectancy.” "Visual degradation in Leonardo da Vinci's iconic self-portrait: A nanoscale study"."

The red chalk painting shows clear signs (corroborated by experts) that is a painting BY Leonardo. Whether or not it is him is conjectured, it is held to be him by most experts. There are some that disagree (and this can be added with evidence!!)

Walnut77 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the title of the article on the Lucan portrait:

"Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci"

Now, what do you suppose that means?

Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are currently doing is providing ample proof of the controversy which you deny...and justification for allowing those who want to take note of that controversy to have their uncensored say. Why not just acknowledge that the dispute exists?

You are stating the identity as FACT. Do you have a problem with saying that it is regarded by some as being a likeness of Leonardo...although this OPINION is not shared by others?

All I can do is to repeat to you that you need to think about the implications of the lack of agreement between the red chalk drawing and the other likenesses.

Now are we finished with this? It's getting repetitious and tedious.

Tobias316 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of all of this.. I want to add AGAIN that you are not an expert who has published this information (NEITHER AM I, BUT I base what I write on sources, and by the way, that Lucan article is incredibly badly referenced.. I have clicked on most references and they do not take you to actual studies but instead to other websites or even broken links.. that is not something to depend on).

Even if you were and expert you would have to link your sources and your studies in order to conclude that one is not Leonardo if the other is. Even if you think this is obvious, you have to PROVE THIS with sources.

Walnut77 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see...

You mean my opinion is not "respectable"? (I thought you said you didn't know who I was)? :)

Tobias316 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying your opinion is not respectable. I am saying you should back it up with sources from experts.. that is all. That is what references are for.

Walnut77 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not writing the information where it is supposed to go. There should probably be an article on Leonardo's Identity or something like that where these conjectures can be made. THIS PORTRAIT is a work of art, independently of who the sitter is thought to be. This is what this should describe and the evidence for who the sitter might be. Information on other portraits go on other articles. Information on Leonardo da Vinci's life also goes in another article (for example).

I do not want to keep discussing. I just want to say that any new additions to the page should be referenced that is all. Changing the references that have been provided right now would be illegal because they are accurate.

Walnut77 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, YES.

We all understand about references and source citations. One can use this as a bludgeon, though, an excuse to remove others' contributions.

I believe, though, there was some material here that spoke to the 'dubious' nature of the red chalk drawing's alleged connection to the image of Plato, and the circular reasoning employed...which I can no longer find. Do you know anything about this? Or, am I just mistaken? I certainly hope you are not demanding sources and then deleting them. The problem, also, is that it is all too easy for one to question the validity of other's sources. For instance, citing the Huffington Post for the proposition that the drawing is "universally accepted'...strikes me as being kind of, well, laughable, to be perfectly candid.

I would think, though, that the goal of any encyclopedia would be to provide accurate and balanced information. And you are not doing that. You can object, I suppose, to the lack of source citations from others, but why, then, do you not supply them yourself to make the article reflect the true "state-of-the-art"?

Here's a fairly good article that manages to accurately sum up the existing state-of-affairs, I think:

http://www.finearts360.com/index.php/artwork-analysis-self-portrait-in-red-chalk-by-leonardo-da-vinci-308/

I think that you could certainly improve the article and remove some objections by simply stating that while the red chalk drawing is believed to be of Leonardo by most, others disagree...as this article does, rather than asserting that it is a 'selfie' as a matter-of-fact.

Tobias316 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the sources I deleted. The history shows all of the edits that were made so you can check sources that were there if they do exist like you say.

I still find it strange that you do not do the same with the Lucan portrait which was discovered just very recently and has not undergone any stylistic studies to determine whether it is Leonardo's or not. It is strange that you question this one so much, while you leave the Lucan as fact which is actually more dubious than anything else.

I see the source you have mentioned, but as before, it does not come from a scientific study (anyone can put up a website and say anything they want about this).

I suppose it can be used to mention some people have suggested it may be Leonardo's uncle (which is something I have read in other sources suggested by other people, again for the same reasons: that he looks older).

Walnut77 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would I want to check the sources on the Lucan article? (It's not mine, if that's what you are thinking).

The discovery of that portrait was covered extensively in the media. The fact that the article may or may not be sourced according to your standards, has no bearing on the truth and the importance of the portrait, itself. Don't confuse all this Wiki-sourcing nonsense with truth or reality.

And knowledge is not understanding. Citing to, relying on authority is not an excuse, or substitute, for thinking.

What that discovery means, now, is that the red chalk drawing is under even greater doubt as being an image of Leonardo. It makes no difference to the issue here, whether the Lucan portrait was painted by Leonardo, or not. What matters is whether it accurately reflects his features. And, (for at least the fourth time, here), it is the red chalk drawing that does not agree with the other known portraits.

And if you are at all interested in presenting an informative and balanced article, then you should, at least, allow others to acknowledge the uncertainty.

Tobias316 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Tobias316 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm. are we starting all over again with you? It seems we do not make any progress. you do not have the expertise to say if one portrait looks like another or not. Even if you did you would have to publish your studies. If you simply put that as your opinion ANYONE ELSE can do the same and delete because it is not an expert opinion it is as simple as that.

Plus, I did not say that the Lucan portrait article is yours. Neither is the red chalk portrait yet you continue to question it much more. You are wrong that the red-chalk is in more doubt. The Lucan was in the media because it was discovered recently that is all. It has not undergone stylistic studies (if it had I would have found these since I have searched the internet for them and the Lucan portrait article as well). None of them refer to studies just websites created by people that can say anything they want about any subject. you might as well link a Mickey Mouse website because it contains the exact same input to the subject: NONE.

Walnut77 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How on earth do you presume to tell me that I "do not have the expertise to say if one portrait looks like another or not"?

Do you have a source for that? Citation, maybe? A "scientific one"? Like, from the Huffington Post, maybe? (Sarcasm, again, I'm afraid).

And again, (and I am saying this to you for at least the second or third time)...I am merely talking to you on the subject of your interference with the content of others' contributions to the article, not trying to edit the article itself.

I am trying to communicate with you.

I don't need to either publish my remarks to you or source them, either.

Tobias316 (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming you don't because I have asked you several times to link studies and you have not. There is no joke about citations. It is one of the rules of this wikipedia, that if what is written is not PROPERLY CITED it can be changed!! I think you should simply go on and build a website where you can put all the information and opinions you want, but in Wikipedia this is how it works.

Sources really are the source of our knowledge today. This is why people go to college, why people do research and publish (because that is the knowledge that we respect today).

I have not made any interference AGAIN FOR THE 100th time. I have deleted information that IS NOT INFORMATION! IT IS YOUR OWN OPINION. Deleting sources that are accurate is vandalism.

Purposely adding incorrect sources is ALSO VANDALISM and in fact it is the worst kind because it is intentionally misinforming.

And this is getting ridiculous, I hope you are not just trolling because seriously that is what it is starting to sound like. I have told you to give me sources to share these sources because I actually do want to see them too, I do not know everything either! You have not given me ANY references to studies that say what you are saying. You gave me a website that mentions the portrait could be his father or uncle. I told you the information about the sitter possibly being his uncle is not a bad addition. What more do you want? The current state of the article says that this portrait is considered to be Leonardo (which has been the case for almost two-hundred years). IT ALSO SAYS THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED IT MAY NOT BE! WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT?

Walnut77 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What do I want?

How many times do I and others have to tell you?

PLEASE stop asserting that the image is a self-portrait of Leonardo, or even an image of Leonardo, AS IF THAT WERE A FACT. It is NOT A FACT. And it is highly misleading and inaccurate to say so.

PLEASE stop deleting information that is accurate and informative and reflects, not only the current state of knowledge concerning the red chalk drawing, but also reflects the dubious nature of the identification in the first place.

With all due respect, I get the impression that you are somewhat out of your depth, here. You don't seem to have any sense of how fragile the basis of some of these opinions concerning the subjects' identities actually are. The one in this case was based upon extremely poor logic, conjecture and speculation.

Citations and source materials are provided so that others can review the source of the information and make their own evaluations of the credibility of the information or conclusion which the source is supposed to support.

Citations, I think, can be probably found to support virtually any proposition one can choose. And, again, as I said to you, they are not a substitute for exercising rational thought processes.

What you cannot do, should not do, is delete material submitted by others, in support of a view that you, personally do not agree with, because you, in your sole opinion, find it to be "unscientific". You are deleting valuable insight, or, at a minimum, a contrary view that deserves to be heard.

You are not competent to determine whether the sources you deleted are "accurate" or not.

What you don't seem to grasp is that what you are doing is determining that any source material that doesn't agree with YOUR OPINION should be deleted.

Now...

...a word about the ability to recognize features of portraits...

Everyone is blessed with the ability to recognize facial features to some extent. I suppose artists possess that ability to a somewhat greater degree. Portrait artists try to capture the identifying features that make an individual unique. If the red chalk man, were, in fact, a representation of Leonardo, then one would expect to find that person's image reflected in any number of works from the period, given Leonardo's role. But you do not. The "Lucan" image...yes.

Go to the Lucan Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucan_portrait_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci

Look at the assembled images on the bottom of the page.

See if you can figure out which one doesn't belong there. Try to think for yourself.

If you cannot, (as any child could, I expect) see which image is not like the others, or you cannot then realize what that probably means...well...I understand that there are rewarding opportunities in the food service industries.

Good luck with that.

Tobias316 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen,

This is the last response I will make. Citations are not used to support any view you want. This is why citations from respectable sources are used (even if there is a debate on a subject this citation will mention it).

WHAT SEEMS OBVIOUS TO YOU MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS TO SOMEONE ELSE (and I am speaking of ANYONE ELSE not necessarily me).

You have not provided citations of fact OR of a debate of any form.

The article DOES NOT say this as fact. It says it is the portrait that is acknowledged as a self portrait by consensus of most experts around the world and has been since it was identified hundreds of years ago. It also says some people have suggested it may be someone else.

There are people who do not believe in the moon landing and label it as a hoax. It is still a UNIVERSALLY acknowledged event that occurred. Only people who want to build up conspiracies do not believe it. These conspiracies also have their articles (but they are not part of the event that allegedly happened).

You could act in the exact same way ABOUT ANYTHING THAT OCCURRED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRITTEN!!! Or everything would say: it is widely, though not universally, acknowledged to have happened (who says? you? who are you?). Grow up and understand that not everything is written around what you believe. You believe whatever you want, you can believe the facts (which is what has been provided in this article and the only information that should belong in it) or you can also believe that you know more than everybody else. In that case, go and convince the world of your opinions and see if they respect it.

Some people believe in evolution some are creationists. These topics are described independently each as if it were true, whether you want to believe it or not is your problem.

I am tired of repeating myself. I will not keep responding unless you provide a USEFUL AND RESPECTABLE reference pertaining to this subject, it could be a DEBATE or whatever THAT MENTIONS THIS SPECIFIC PORTRAIT. Again, this is not an article on Leonardo's identity, it is about THIS PIECE OF ART.

Walnut77 (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Walnut:

"The article DOES NOT say this as fact".

Yes, it most certainly does. Here is what it says:

The portrait of a man in red chalk (circa 1510) in the Biblioteca Reale, Turin is a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci.

It doesn't equivocate. It doesn't say that it is "believed to be by some". It says that it IS. Don't you even read your own stuff?

Walnut:

"Again, this is not an article on Leonardo's identity, it is about THIS PIECE OF ART".

Then perhaps you'd best remove the part where you state that it is a "self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci", don't you think? That kind of sounds like it is talking about the identity of the sitter. Again, do you read what you write? (Can't actually say that I blame you if you don't).

And for the umpteenth time... I was simply asking you to stop butchering the article and the facts. Any examples I have given you here were meant as illustrations (including the images) of the controversy behind the identification, of which you seem to be wholly ignorant...for your benefit.

Again, I was not asking you to edit the article. If you bothered to read what I said, I clearly stated that there would be no point in adding the section on the Lucan portrait if it was going to be removed. Which it would, no doubt.

I don't need to provide you with sources to ask you to stop removing the work of others. I really don't know how to respond to someone who continually preaches the virtue of citations, while citing to the Huffington Post.

It's kind of absurdly comical.

Unsolicited advice: try coming up with a less obstinate, disrespectful attitude and perhaps, some more thoughtful, accomodating language.

Thanks for your attention.

Tobias316 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I have reworded the first part because I agree that it stated directly that it was a self-portrait.

Again, I will continue to emphasize that any additions to the article must be made with good references.

Good day.

Walnut77 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Identity of the man

The statement that the portrait is "widely but not universally accepted" represents the fact accurately. The two newspaper articles about the deterioration of the paper are naturally presenting the most dramatic scenario possible when that state that the subject is "universally accepted". This represents effective journalism, not fact. I haven't got access to my library, which is currently in a shipping container on the high seas, but I believe that Angela Ottino dells Chiesa in her penguin book "Complete works of Leonardo da Vinci" gives a list of art historians who support the identification and those who don't. The book was written in the 1970s. Since then, many more recent scholars, including Martin Kemp, the preeminent English scholar of Leonardo, do not believe that it represents Leonardo.

You cannot say that the portrait is "universally accepted" on the say-so of a couple of newspaper articles whose journalists have plainly failed to do their homework. Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Walnut, if you are going to keep up this ridiculous reversion, on the strength of two newspaper statements that misuse the term "universally accepted" then I suggest that you do some serious reading and investigate just which experts really do agree and which don't.

the statement "widely but not universally accepted" is the truth.

Amandajm (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I speak Chinese or what.

There are people who disagree, that is why there is a controversy section.

The universally accepted clause should not be used at all, clearly since there are people who say it is (and there is reference for this), and people, like you, who say it isn't (even without reference). The facts are that the person in the portrait was identified as Leonardo and since then this drawing has been regarded as his self-portrait. That is a fact. Now there is controversy as to who the sitter is, that is also a fact and that needs to be sourced just like the other claim that the portrait has been regarded as his self-portrait is true!

Also, if you do not have the reference yet, then wait until you have it, because how do you know what was exactly stated in it if you do not have it in front of you?

There would, I imagine, be plenty of references in the internet about this anyways so why is it only on you in physical form?

Walnut77 (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation problem is actually yours.

All that "widely but not universally" actually means is that while most accept it, some disagree. And you seem to (now) acknowledge the controversy, so why delete that? What's wrong with that?

I doubt that absolutely everything, especially introductory remarks, summation material, needs to be relentlessly sourced. And the "widely but not universally" statement strikes me as a fair assessment of the "state-of-the art", as Amandajm says. While the media and popular culture may widely regard the image as being of Leonardo, some scholars and academics disagree. And the recent trend is away from the identification.

And while journalistic sources may be appropriate for some matters...they are not competent sources for matters of professional expertise. In other words, you probably shouldn't quote the journalistic sources for the proposition that the portrait is "universally" recognized.

You are the one that advanced the "universally" accepted notion...and your sources are probably inappropriate to support that contention.

I am wondering why you decided this article needed editing in the first place?

Tobias316 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129023331/http://www.finearts360.com/index.php/artwork-analysis-self-portrait-in-red-chalk-by-leonardo-da-vinci-308/ to http://www.finearts360.com/index.php/artwork-analysis-self-portrait-in-red-chalk-by-leonardo-da-vinci-308/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My contribution deleted

@Ewulp:

Dear Ewulp ,

Thank you for your suggestions on my contribution. As far as the concept of fringe idea concerning anamorphosis in Leonardo’s Self Portrait, I’d like to know where your remarks come from and from what skills. I am very well prepared to ameliorate myself thanks to your intervention. Anamorphosis cannot be considered fringe even in mere proportional sense, since it occupies a huge amount of space in the drawing. It cannot be kept silent, downplayed, or underrated. The only flaw of the sources I used have, is that the majority of people do not know them. They are reputable, tested, and founding in art history. I’d like to find somebody to contradict the thesis exposed by Baltrušaitis and White in thousands of pages, but most importantly by Leonardo himself: it is him who writes on topics previously disregarded, such as accidental perspective, the use of the armillar sphere and other optical instruments in painting, in his own hands in manuscripts as Codex Atlanticus, A Treatise on Painting, Codex Arundel 263, Codex A of the Institute de France. The specialization of the topic does not diminish its importance, even though it is understandably not grasped by laymen. This is the reason for the detailed explanation. Further sources on this important aspects of Leonardo’s work are, just to mention a few:

https://www.uffizifirenze.it/il-mistero-dell’annunciazione-di-leonardo%3A-errori-o-virtuosismi%3F.html

https://www.adelphi.it/libro/9788845919350

https://www.adelphi.it/libro/9788845901423

Notwithstanding my 2 Phds I am not asking for special consideration, but I would have appreciated a talk to be opened instead of brutal cancellinig of the whole contribution. I quote you here “I'm not an administrator. When something that should be there is missing it's because nobody has written it yet. Wikipedia is the work of volunteers. Ewulp (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I frankly do not find convincing the remarks on the sources, but in case they are founded I am ready to make a step back. Including a previously ignored of pictorial techniques in Leonardo needed a well founded source apparatus. I included paper and online sources. All further sources are of course welcome to enrich an aspect of the genius of Leonardo. BeRenaissance (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Anamorphosis is not fringe, but the allegation that this drawing contains a hidden werewolf is fringe unless the claim is accepted by many notable art historians. The source you cited is this unsigned article on a website nobody has heard of. If the material you added to the article is not a fringe interpretation of the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk, it should be possible to name several notable scholars who have agreed that Leonardo hid a werewolf in this particular drawing. Otherwise it looks like WP:OR, not allowed. Ewulp (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You made the same remark on the whole piece cancelling it without recognizing the strength and importance of sources as Baltrusaitis and White, who cannot be considered fringe in any way. Now you consider fringe the research of other art historians with PhDs, on a different page on a topic on which you do not seem very versed. The empirical observation of the drawing according to the methodology of art history is based upon direct sources of the author, both in his writings:

“…you will find the most wonderful inventions, arousing the painter’s talent to new inventions, compositions of battles, of animals, and of men, as much as various compositions of lands and monstrous thing, as devils and similar things, because they will cause you to gain honor, because in the confused thing the talent is aroused to new inventions”

— Leonardo Da Vinci A Treatise on Painting

and on the drawing itself. This remark looks as your personal opinion, whereas I brought a direct source, making the evidence strong, tangible and undeniable. In addition to this the contributions are a partial translation from Wikipedia Italy, where they were thoroughly discussed. Reviewing your interventions in the last 48 hours I noticed a penchant for making corrections on citations, notes and interventions on art history without familiarity with the sources. I am always ready for discussion, but it should be based on facts and not opinion.

BeRenaissance (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither Baltrušaitis nor White ever alleged that the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk contains a hidden werewolf. This alleged werewolf is your own "discovery" and Wikipedia does not publish original research, as explained at WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Ewulp (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ewulp:

Dear Ewulp

The first time you cancelled the contribution you cancelled both Baltrušaitis and White. I wonder if you ever had a chance to actually read them. On another note, I saw you sometimes referred to yourself in the plural. I wonder if you are a single person or a collective, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, as you may know. In which case I wonder if your contributions would be considered invalid. In case you represented a plurality of art copy editors, a bit weird considering the not so high level of your intervention, I feel compelled to remind you the blatant conflict of interest. About the policies, if you define Leonardo da Vinci a primary source, and I refer to the quote concerning the monstrous figures and their anamorphic rendering, the philological reconstruction by Apocalypse Pictures becomes secondary and the article in Rinascimento.io magazine a tertiary source. In any case it is an empirical observation, following an extremely rich frame of sources and bibliography, it cannot be defined an original research. If instead you consider the philological reconstruction of Apocalypse Pictures a primary source, Leonardo and Rinascimento.io would become secondary sources, confirming the foundation of the observation. As for the use of anamorphosis in Leonardo, there is no possible discovery, since, as demonstrated over and over in time, it was a topic widely discussed since 1400, as can be seen in the bibliography. The description is not copied and the references are taken from the books owned by Leonardo himself. No original research here. Images, descriptions, notes on Leonardo’s library are linked to the pure empirical observation of what has been known forever: Your comments seem to lack competence and are not linked to the logic of Wikipedia, being your personal opinions. BeRenaissance (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither Baltrušaitis nor White ever alleged that the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk contains a hidden werewolf. "Apocalypse Pictures", whatever that is, does not seem to be a recognized authority on Leonardo. Another hallucination: "I saw you sometimes referred to yourself in the plural". Diffs, please. Ewulp (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ewulp:

Dear Ewulp,

your stunning knowledge of the complete works of Baltrusaitis and White and of all the corpus of Leonardo's writings, has finally convinced me. You should maybe have taken into account the websites I indicated as valid tertiary sources, as specified in wikipedia policies. But it is not my intention to go on discussing on this specific topic. For these reasons I will be replacing the word and concept of werewolf with the exact wording used by Baltrusaitis, White and Leonardo who talked about monstrous things and devils. --BeRenaissance (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Contribution The anamorphic mirror of the Self-Portrait

The anamorphic mirror of the Self-Portrait is a translation from Italian Page

BeRenaissance (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)