Talk:Antonio Canova

Image
Note that the image on this page is likely to be deleted soon. You can help. If you know of a version of this image that is PD, another image of the same subject that is PD, or are willing to go to the museum and ask them if you can take a photo for Wikipedia or get permission for the photo to be released under a free license, then please do so. Thanks. -Harmil 13:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories for discussion notification
Jafeluv (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Puffery
This article seems to be written with a lot of peacock talk. It makes it harder to read. 75.169.28.14 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of the article was obviously lifted from the 1911 Britannica, which incorporates the tone you describe as part of its style. The subject is worthy of a more modern treatment. Rt3368 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Horses of St. Mark's
Along with a modern treatment of the subject, Canova's involvement with the return of the copper Horses of Saint Mark to Venice is worth a recount. The story of one "Captain Dumaresq" returning the horses is slim and deserves elaboration or confirmation. There is a recent work, The Horses of St. Mark's: A Story of Triumph in Byzantium, Paris, and Venice by Charles Freeman, 2010 Overlook Hardcover. Rt3368 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Canova nationality
Canova never was a Italian citizen or never politically was for Italian unity. I understand that a part of Italians have made him a symbol of Italy, I guess because the fascists liked his neo-classical art. But never mind, he was born before the history of the Italian nation and he did not embrace the idea of unity of Italy. He was Venetian in every sense, a typical representative of the culture of the Venice Republic. I don't matter what Treccani writes (it's nationalistic biased) and Wikipedia is not a copycat of Britannica, especially where they get it wrong. It's simply a matter of logic, without political bias. Nationality has much to do with the place of birth, or with what you learn growing up as children to adulthood, and then with daily life and cultural experiences. And that means that if you loose your country in late years, you still bore that nationality. Antonio Canova has never had any Italian experience, he has never thought about the concept of a Italian Nation (so you can not even consider him Italian as an aspiration). Saying that Canova is Italian is a heavily nationalistic stretch and I believe that the Britannica has trusted the wrong expert. Instead he was a Venetian patriot, annoyed by Napoleon occupation of the Venice Repubblic. Compare this attitude with that of the Italian nationalists that instead greeted the arrival of Napoleon as Italy liberator. If Canova had been Italian, he would have greeted with pleasure the forced union of Venice Republic with the rest of Italy. But it is not what happened, now he is turning in his grave. Surely the Italians have abducted Antonio Canova legacy, but that doesn't make him a Italian. --Robertiki (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You make confusion between citizenship and nationality. Here nobody is nationalist as you suppose. The fact that you accuse other of being nationalist is a little suspicious indeed. All things you said are part of a biography that I have never read of him. Please provide source instead of trying of being one and, please, avoid attacking reliable sources.--95.247.107.71 (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I could accept that we write that the work of Vivaldi has been taken as a founding element of what is today described as the Italian artistic culture, but to write that Vivaldi was of Italian ethnicity, is a nationalistic WP:POV. The Republic of Venice lasted about a thousand years, and for most of its history, its possessions in the Italic peninsula were only a small part of its territorial extension. The mixing of interests of peoples as different as were the Western ones towards the the Eastern, encouraged by a strong mercantile economy, made the Venetian culture a special feature that can not be reduced to a belonging in the prevailing Latin culture in the Italic peninsula. Which instead had been heavily touched by the harsh experience of repeated successive foreign dominations. Bad or good, is no question, but it's certainly a different experience: before the Italian nation was born, the Venetians had no reason to complain of their independence. I would say that there were Venetians starting to nurture an Italian belonging only almost a century after they lost their independence. But before that, as a Canova, their protests were for the liberation of Venice, not Italy unity. For this reason, the nationality of the historical Venetians can be considered a litmus test. --Robertiki (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a POV, just a matter of fact: my sources (reliable) to your personal opinion on the matter. You are confusing History with Sociology and Anthropology. I know the history of Venice, it was a large and powerful city-state with a very long history: this doesn't make it a nation or a nation-state, which are very different concepts from the first one. Your deductive reasoning about Canova by starting from the reactions of Venetians on the Napoleonic occupation is merely a POV, a wrong way to write on an impartial encyclopaedia and, most important, contradictory, because I can list you lots of Venetians that were in favour of Napoleon and lots of Venetians that will become patriot during the Italian unification, but this is irrelevant and misleading when you talk about ethnicities. Ethnicity is linked to a culture developing through centuries of events until nowadays, totally disconnected to states, kingdoms, city-states. It is the case of German, Irish, Italian, English... ethnicities that survived to wars, occupations, divisions. I study sociology, anthropology and history so I know what I am talking about. PS: you wrote as explanation of your talk, "Bad or good, but before independence lost Venetians were happy alone": this can be considered a political sentence like the one (fake) that says that under Mussolini trains were on time. Just for showing you that your approach to the ongoing issue can be not impartial at all--95.247.107.71 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last part of your message, highlighted in bold, I see that you have misunderstood my wording. I remember now that there are Autonomist demands from Veneto inhabitants and now I realize that Venetian in English stands also for only those from Veneto (in italian there are different words: Veneti for the Veneto inhabitants and Veneziani for the old Republic citizens, or today, for the inhabitants of Venice). I want to stress that Veneto and Republic of Venice are non the same. Sorry, but it was not my intention to refer the Autonomist demands, but I was merely referring to the fact that I don't know of any documents or writings of Venetian (as citizen of historic republic) extolling an Italy unity, before Venice fall. Hmmm, Mussolini ? Really ? --Robertiki (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some similar examples:


 * John Gibson: ... was a Welsh Neoclassical sculptor ...
 * Thomas Jones: ... was a Welsh landscape painter ...
 * Edward Owen: ... was a Welsh artist ... 
 * Thomas Brigstocke:  ... was a Welsh portrait painter ... 
 * and the list is long ...


 * Josep Tapiró Baró: ... was a Catalan painter ...
 * Marià Fortuny: ... was the leading Catalan painter of his day ... 
 * and the list is long ...

--Robertiki (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I totally knew your point: since you were talking about the Republic of Venice, you included in it Italians (not only from Veneto but also from Lombardy, Trentino and Friuli Venezia Giulia), Croats, Greeks and all peoples under the Republic domination. Veneto's separatist and/or autonomist parties have nothing to do with our point. I didn't misunderstand you at all since the beginning. This does not change that your statement that I put in bold was a totally non-sense and disconnected from this talk, because merely political, typical of political slogan, like the one related to Mussolini, this is the reason why I showed it as e.g.. Regarding the last part of your talk, welsh are an ethnic group and one of the four constituent nations/countries of the UK, so of course you have a welsh ethnic group. The Catalan issue is different. It is an ongoing issue, sometimes cultural, sometimes political (e.g. if we have to be accurate also the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands should be included in a potential Catalan nation? and not only Catalonia). Very complicated and totally unrelated to the Vivaldi one. If you want to talk about this issue there are other part in Wikipedia where you can explain your issue.--95.247.107.71 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I Agree with your proposal for the opening sentence, dropping there the nationality issue. Instead in the infobox I would propose to put both nationality, i.e. Italian-Venetian. Following are some sources I found.
 * The first sources (of the same event, but different publishers) suggests in different variation the theme of a Venetian artist with Italian Neoclassical. The last source, drops Italian for a neutral Neoclassical: The Venetian artist Antonio Canova was the leading sculptor of the Neoclassical movement. So, I would prefer to state both nationality in the infobox, hoping so that everyone is happy, dropping the silliness of forcing everything in few large boxes. The world is beautiful because it is diverse. --Robertiki (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for your opinion User:MarshalN20. I would say that since culturally and ethnically was Italian and of course politically Venetian, I would add just, "from the Republic of Venice", I think it is a good compromise. If we agree I can change it. About the infobox I agree with User:MarshalN20, we would keep only Italian, since his parents were both Italian.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you source/share a definition describing the cultural and ethnic Italian group ? Otherwise, it is not easy to understand why simple people (workers of artisans), born and living all there life in a exclusive environment should be Italian. I would say that the Republic of Venice was an exception, long time before 1300 (Old Swiss Confederacy), and on the long term, the social and ethnic mixing from territories covering more in the Balkans area than on the continental Italy, with this unique political situation should have created a different way of life, different point of views, a different value scale. That should be entailed in the (historical) Venetian denomination. Or not ? The only difference I see from the Welsh is that the Venetian identity was destroyed after 1797. And I would always stress that Veneto is not the Republic of Venice, but only a part of it, and only after early 15th century. Saying that Veneto conveys the Republic of Venice legacy is like saying that Germany conveys the Roman Empire legacy. Sorry, the Republic of Venice is lost, old story. But from that, to go to erase its history is far stretched. I suspect, reading the otherside, that that is the problem. They read Republic of Venice, but understand Veneto. The only difference between the old Republic of Venice and Wales is that the later has survived. And, on a side note, I suspect that what dissenting Veneto inhabitants are missing is the Austrian domination, not the mixing pot that was the Republic of Venice. Proof ? How much is today the continental Veneto in line with Venice, where there are perhaps still vestiges of the historical culture ? Do you see in Venice the same cultural and then political reality of Veneto ? Or are they more open ? --Robertiki (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear user Robertiki, this section is not appropriate for discussing ethnicity issues. To get informed about Italian culture, language, ethnicity... is up to you. You or the other user asked for a third opinion... so now you have more than one... Currently there are two sources who say Canova is Italian, and they are two widely known encyclopaedias, used frequently as sources in wikipedia. Anyway as seen the situation I asked for more opinions, if you keep disagreeing with me and User:MarshalN20, we will wait also for the others. At the moment, I strongly recommend Robertiki and the anonymous one not to further change the topic on this article until we agree on it. Avoiding edit war is fundamental in these cases--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Robertiki when he writes that "Canova never was a Italian citizen or never politically was for Italian unity" and "was Venetian in every sense". I would like to see people classified by nationality of the time: Venetians, Sicilians, etc. not Italians, Prussians, Bavarians, etc. not Germans, and so on. That would be quite more neutral and accurate. I am very grateful to Robertiki for having raised the issue and I think that a broader discussion is needed. --Checco (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Walter asked my opinion about the issue of the nationality of Canova, so here I am ;-). First of all, in general, there is a guideline about the opening paragraph of a biographic article, named WP:OPENPARA, and I invite everyone to read it. The presence of a guideline narrows our freedom of choice in the lead: in particular, the guideline does not allow the mentioning of a double nationality in the opening paragraph. Casually, 2 weeks ago I opened a thread at ANI about it, and it would be good if all the editors here would read the conclusion of that discussion. It is interesting to notice that WP:OPENPARA prescribes nationality, not ethnicity, to be mentioned in the opening of the lead. Anyway, for notables belonging to national groups whose national state has been established in the recent past, and who have been living before the state's foundation (in Europe among them are especially notable Italians and Germans), it is customary to mention in the opening paragraph their ethnicity. BTW, you can notice that among the examples at WP:OPENPARA there is Petrarch, defined Italian and not Florentine. Applying this convention, Luther is defined as German, not Saxon, Michelangelo as Italian, not Florentine, Kant German, not Prussian, Bernini Italian, not Neapolitan. Following this path, Canova is defined in the opening paragraph as Italian, and not as Venetian. This is especially true for persons who are notable for cultural achievements, and reflects the consensus among scholars and mainstream sources. About Italians, since the formation of the Italian ethnos is generally placed during the middle Ages (ca. X-XIII centuries), as a wikirule of thumb I would say that in the lead we can define as Italians all the notables born in Italy (geographic region plus a couple of adjoining regions), participating in the Italian culture, and who became notable while they were in Italy (because of WP:OPENPARA). Of course, if the current situation should be changed, this would imply first a central discussion (I suppose at the MOS talk page) and a broad consensus, since the impact of such a change would be huge. Alex2006 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Checco and Alessandro. I agree with Alex2006 about the WP:OPENPARA. According to current guidelines, for example Italian means geographically and culturally from Italy, and it is not allowed to mention past nationalities, citizenships or even ethnicities. I think it is for the confusion that could be generated from putting several citizenships/nationalities of the past, or also for avoiding political claims. Yes of course, if we want to change this, we need to change the WP:OPENPARA, so moving this discussion to a totally different wikipedia context. In fact, previously I said that the problem is not Canova. As far I know this page as it is now, it respects the WP:OPENPARA. At least, as seen that the users started almost an edit war, we can add that Canova was an Italian.... from the Republic of Venice (even this can be misleading because at his death he was from the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia (now here is the explanation of having the WP:OPENPARA) and keeping in the infobox Italian as suggested by the third opinion User:MarshalN20.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

References to post

 * Further note on Antonio Canova's nationality. This argument has been around in many ways for many days about a number of nationalities, ethnicities, etc. I recall it with regard to Italy as an argument in the Talk sections of Andrea Schiavone, Amerigo Vespucci, Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni da Verrazzano, Dante Alighieri, Antonio Vivaldi, Francesco Borromini, Christopher Columbus. In general, I favor the term Italian to other provincial terms for individuals born in the peninsula, in the areas who spoke a language now considered Italian or its dialects. I am just not a fan of all the minutial arguments of history and ethnicity, etc. By all means, say that Canova was born in the Veneto, but he performed much of his mature work in Rome, he worked in the areas, now considered Italy. I would group him with other sculptors in this milieu, who I would call Italian. The problem with making it more specific is that it requires us to ask for the papers, or interrogate the loyalty of persons, and ask them where were you on the night of ...? Also Northern Italy after Napoleon, was a shifting set of boundaries and states. Do you pick what Canova was when he was born, when he was 30, 50, 60 years old, etc?


 * Our head are going to explode with too much arguing about this. Dante was born but exiled from Florence, and died and was buried in Ravenna. At one time, the Florentines wanted his relics moved to Santa Croce, Florence, which by some considered a pantheon for either Florentine, or perhaps Tuscan, or perhaps Italian heroes and scholars. But Ravenna did not relent. The Florentines instead did erect a Monument to Dante outside in Piazza Santa Croce. The monument completed alas by sculptor from Ravenna, but only with much controversy, not only because he was not Florentine, but also because what was viewed as a slight to the patrons, the Austrian Hapsburg rulers of the Duchy of Tuscany, when the sculptor included Florentine and Roman republican symbols in the base, which nearly put a kibosh on the whole thing, until the ruling House of Savoy, later of Piedmont and Sardinia, came strolling into town as invited Kings of Italy. So, is this an Italian statue?


 * Let it go! Canova is Italian, born in territory of the Republic of Venice.Rococo1700 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rococo. Yes, "...Italian...born in territory of the Republic of Venice..." we can add this, because it specifies "born".--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Walter J. Rotelmayer we are discussing ethnicity issues. What else ? And you should explain, otherwise your arguments are simply WP:POV. From your user page I understand that italian is your native language. Not for me. And not for much who read en:wiki. So you should explain something, I suspect, is understand only by who grows up from to cradle in the italian way of thinking. And what puzzles me is that other italians I read, don't agree with what looks evermore, as your belief (as in faith). For that reason, I feel that to help settle the issue there is the need of opinions of neutral parties, i.e. not of italian etnicity. A politness note: there was neither a stint of edit warring (only a somewhat heated, or as you write tumultuous, discussion), so please don't strongly recommend in what looks like a scolding. Aside that, its all fine.


 * @Alex2006 WP:OPENPARA is only a guideline, not a algorithm; we are not machines :-) And if the situation doesn't fit, we should WP:IAR. Let us think: if there was no Napoleon and today the Republic of Venice was still there, as is the Welsh country, would we not write Canova as a Venetian artist ? You are proposing is to change the forefathers past according to their offspring fate. Is it not the description of revisionism ? Two parallel worlds: Canova should be Venetian or not, according to what happens to the offsprings of the Venetian ? Doesn't sound logic and neither fair.
 * Your argument in the discussion on WP:OPENPARA would be because Canova became notable when he was still in Venice, then only the Venetian nationality should be mentioned. And I don't agree that the rigid application of the described rule would avoid edit wars (or something more civilized, like a discussion). A balanced compromise is the only powerful tool to avoid conflicts (virtual genocide aside :-). Every time there is only one winner, we are simply brooding the next war. I would add that there should be no calculations/reasoning about who benefits (as in ...not go always to the advantage of italians...), because that is the reasoning of someone has to loose. The success story of United States is that of mutual cooperation (win-win result), not of winners and losers (is that the problem of Italy ? Mors tua vita mea, which I could translate as: I live if you die. The drammatic final scenes of A Man on His Knees depicts that view (two men, instead of cooperating to save both lives, one men tries – naively, I would say - to use delation, against the other, to be sure to save his life).
 * About nationality and ethnicity, I am worried that it is not always clear which is one.
 * Luther was a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire.
 * Kant is in the position of a Savoyard citizen (Prussia grows to be Germany)
 * and so on, yours examples are different, and it is only your thesis that sees uniformity.


 * @Walter J. Rotelmayer who says that it is not allowed to mention past nationalities, citizenships or even ethnicities ? (wording, please). The same as Alex2006, you are taut to find a winner. It is forcing one description that creates confusion. If two nationality are indicated, you are giving information, setting a starting point (inciting the curiosity ?), but not creating confusion. Your position is creating the field for political claims, not the other way. I don't see the need of changing WP:OPENPARA. It works okay. It is sufficient to apply WP:IAR. A little of flexibility, of discretionality. We are not machines and the guidelines are not machine instructions.
 * And, an aged Venetian (or Italian) remains Venetian (or Italian) also if the Republic of Venice (or Italy) are destroyed. And that is the point on which we don't agree, and I feel there is no yielding, so we need a compromise. I wan't to stress, that from my side it is not a position interested on Venetian in place of Italian (I agree merrily with both indicated). But my position is that every historical nationality has is place (as Cretans with Greeks and so on). I strongly feel as misleading to write “greek” when it is cretan-greek or greek-turkish. The second way of classification gives a lot of information from the first moment. And if there are software related problems, we should change it or ignore it [I wonder if history is turning back to a nationalistic haughtiness ... :-( ].
 * The question around Venetian (or Cretan, or Welsh, or Catalan ... ) is not that of provincial terms. I insist: one thousand years of indipendent and original history (a Republic in the middle of, before medieval, after absolute, Monarchies) substantially neither European, and only the last couple hundred years with continental Italian possessions, are a strong argument for a separate classification, at least with a double indication. I would starting picking the Venetians in the list you made.
 * Saying that Canova was born in Veneto and then stating that he is Italian, rewrites history, it is misleading.


 * @Rococo1700 Not so fast, as a committee, your group counts only for one. This is not a vote. I am waiting the opinion of more parties, neutral (less biased? :-), i.e. not Italian (remember: here is en:wiki). And it should not be a discussion about changing WP:OPENPARA, but more of exercising WP:IAR where it makes sense (and if not here, where ? :-) --Robertiki (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Italian Neoclassical art is a specific type of the Neoclassical movement. It is not "nationalistic" in the sense that the term "Italian" is being imposed to define a nationality, but rather it is a reflection of the unique multicultural and historical influences of the peninsula. So, to state that mentioning "Neoclassical" without "Italian" is somehow a "more neutral" term is incorrect. That's all. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. So, okay, it should be Italian Neoclassical. But ... that his art happened to become an icon for that Italian movement, is something that happened after. I.e. it should not change is nationality or ethnicity (or whatever on what the fuss is).
 * The crucial points are therefore:


 * we should not delete from history dead nationalities, it looks not only like a bad practice of historical revisionism, but it eliminates useful information. For example, if Canova were not Venetian, would he have been insipered to its particular form of art ? Being Venetian, of course according to a hypothesis of that, as a culture, of a different type from that of the mainland peninsula, could not have contributed to his idea? New ideas are not born in a  vacuum , but are the result of the influences experienced by their creators.
 * we should not change history after it happened. If when one was alived, he had a clear nationality, he should keep that also in the future. We should not rewrite history.
 * --Robertiki (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The point I wanted to make with introducing the secondary source into this discussion was to emphasize that none of us should be coming up with original research on this matter. John's quote clearly indicates that Canova was very much aware during his lifetime that his art was being used as a symbol for Italian national identity (italianita); in fact, the secondary source indicates that this was Canova's intention. He did consider his nationality to be Italian. What he didn't want was a united Italy as a political unit (a single state).
 * As for how to label Canova in the article, John's source indicates that calling him a "Venetian" and an "Italian" are equally acceptable. Given the context of the times, using both terms was not mutually exclusive. There is nothing revisionist about referring to Canova as an Italian. Maybe what is needed here is an WP:RFC to establish consensus. Best.-- MarshalN20 T al k 18:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me explain: if one had a nationality, he should keep that, doesn't mean that he can't add another nationality. As in British American or Baltic Germans. So, I would like to see Italian Venetian. As I suggested: a win-win solution. --Robertiki (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The last proposal by Robertiki is contradictory: because according to this way, Canova was Venetian until 1802, Italian until 1814, and Lombard-Venetian until his death. Since his art was totally part of this artistic movement: Italian Neoclassical and 19th-century art, since he always wrote in Italian his papers and notes on his works (a clear sign that he felt totally part, at least culturally, of the Italian region) we should keep Italian and at least mentioning that he was born in the Republic of Venice.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He was never Lombard-Venetian as we are talking here. And beware the misunderstanding of the two different meanings of Venetian in English:
 * - as one belonging to the Republic of Venice
 * - as one belonging to the Veneto region
 * Canova the artist received nothing from the cultural-political entity known as Kingdom of Lombardy–Veneto.
 * And as a side note, Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia is a wrong wording, it should read Kingdom of Lombardy–Veneto as in Veneto.
 * Your mistake is mixing a formal, burocratic citizenship, like that of the last period of his life, with the cultural belonging that is inherent in Canova's being a Italian-Venetian. Was he a Italian citizen ? Never! Was he also (and not only) a Italian artist ? In a broad sense, yes. So what does citizenship as Lombard-Venetian has to do with his belonging as we are disputing ? Instead the "Venetian" (as Republic of Venice) has much more to do as a simple citizenship. Don't mix nationality with citizenship.
 * And I am not going to elaborate of the possibility of a triple nationality, It would'nt have any sense. A cultural and/or political belonging requires at least two generations: how much should an entire population live to become a triple nationality ? Maybe theoretically possible, but unlikely. Are there any cases ? Please stay on the point. --Robertiki (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't get my point or you didn't want to get my point. Anyway, I just recommend you to read the best biography of Canova written by his friend Melchiorre Missirini: Della Vita di Antonio Canova, that says a lot about the Italianità of Canova and his cultural roots in the Italian Neoclassical Art. Moreover, also websites of famous museums outside Italy, for instance the American http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/204758 http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/artists/357/antonio-canova-italian-1757-1822/ consider him Italian at first, so you said that is only an Italian custom, but it seems that abroad the consideration of Canova is the same we have here. You asked for third opinions, above you have mine and many others. Keep trying to argue with third opinion, according to me, it does not make much sense.Regards--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read all, but I am not sure which is your conclusion following my arguments: no double indication as "Italian Venetian" or is there some space for a compromise ? The discussion was very useful (at least to me, helping me to focus) and WP:3O is only the first step. The importance of the matter deserves further action, as suggested by the third opinion MarshalN20. Thanks for your answer. --Robertiki (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. As I stated before, keeping the article as it is now and adding "born in the Republic of Venice".--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate shorter explanation to demonstrate the impossibility of Canova, Marco Polo, Casanova, Palladio, Tintoretto, Canaletto, Vivaldi, Caboto to be italians! I repeat, was Jesus Christ an Israeli? Was Arkimede Italian? Italy began to exist in 1861. Italy is a state created through invasion and annexation. Was Ghandy British? Why People in Wikipedia lie? Why do they ban the defintion "Venetians/Venetian People? Why all Venetian artists cannot be defined for what they really were Venetian citizens of the Repubblic of Venice, speking Venetian Language. All of them ignored italian (a language created by Manzoni and Accademia della Crusca in the second half of 19th century). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffaeleserafini (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This keeps on popping up with other artists such as Canaletto. In the case of Canaletto, my argument uses as evidence that the encyclopedic sources of art of the period, from both the 19th (Lanzi for example) and 20th century (Wittkower), define him as part of the Italian school of painting. This may change in the future, but for now, our mental categorizing makes him "Italian". I suspect a similar argument could be made for Canova. This is a useful metric for making a decision, since you have to provide your sources. I also do not think Lanzi and Wittkower were motivated by the same nationalism or bias.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Funerary Monument
It should be noted that a funerary monument containing Canova's heart can be found at Dei Frari in Venice. This fact is noted in the article on Dei Frari in Wikipedia itself.Abenr (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonio Canova. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20050723014633/http://www.scultura-italiana.com/Galleria/Canova%20Antonio/index.html to http://www.scultura-italiana.com/Galleria/Canova%20Antonio/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Canova Vue 2.tif
 * Jerome & Henrietta busts.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Venus Italica by Canova.jpg