Talk:Federico da Montefeltro

Untitled
A duplicate page Federico II da Montefeltro should be merged with this one. --Wetman 23:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. --Wetman 16:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image
The picture which shows Federico da Montefeltro reading with his son as been proved a fake from the nineteeth century. Is is better not to use it as an illustration

Martine Vasselin Art History University teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.239.58.15 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that (Portrait of Federico da Montefeltro with His Son Guidobaldo) is the picture you had in mind — I don't think it is serious to believe it was a 19th century fake. If it was another image, it has been removed and so the issue is solved.--DB (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What you may believe or not, it is a fact that the painting was probably not painted by Pedro Berruguete but by a different artist imitating his style. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2009/jul/22/fake-art-forgeries-national-gallery
 * Serious art historians are in doubt about the attribution but no one has proved it is a "fake", let alone made two centuries ago. And the link you provide is far from being proof of that. (Please sign your posts, so that I may know if I am replying to one person, Martine Vasselin, or 2.) PS — "a fact that it was probably..." is basically not a fact....DB (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
As of May 16, 2019, 6:30pm Eastern U.S. time, the article is stating that after the right eye was lost (but replaced by a disfiguring scar in compensation) QUOTE: it was necessary to portray him only on his "good" side. UNQUOTE. But immediately to the right of that text (as it lays out in my browser-window) is a painting of him talking to Cristoforo Landino. Now, we can infer from the article that eye-loss was early 1450s. Other places in WikiP* (and on the internet outside WikiP) say the painting with Landino is circa 1460. But the dates really don't matter. In the Landino painting, the piece of nose-bridge removed to facilitate left-right scans of the visual field with one eye (the removed piece would have obscured EVERYTHING along any line going through it, quite a large cone) is clearly shown having already been taken out. Ergo, this HAS TO BE after the eye-loss and scar-acquisition. And yet we are seeing the right side of his face, which the text shows we never see after the eye-loss. We see a side of his face after a certain accident after which the article says we never see that side of his face. Something MUST be wrong somewhere. Please fix.


 * Yeah, I'm doing that again, using Wikipedia as a source to impeach Wikipedia. I believe that that is legitimate and no amount of admonishing is going to convince me otherwise. When an attorney cross-examining points out an inconsistency in a witness's story, the attorney doesn't have to pick and choose one "fact" to refute the other "assertion". The attorney can merely point out that it's not possible for both contradictory statements to be true, so the witness must be lying about SOMETHING. I'm not impeaching any statements within the article. I'm impeaching the article. It can't ALL be true, and it's not on ME to pick whether the text is true and the painting is a fraud or the painting is true and the text is in error. Special:Contributions/74.64.104.99|74.64.104.99]] (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * You are of course 100% correct. Now, the painting might be a forgery, or painted at the time but not from the model by a painter who didn't know, or perhaps the 15th century version of Photoshop was involved. But it doesn't matter in the end, because the statement in the article is uncited and must therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

what's missing in the article is who is the mother of Federico....which I consider an extremely important issue thank you mirella a. sehl tulsa, okl labeduina@aol.com

2600:1700:8661:32A0:64C7:3D54:D08C:CC7F (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)mirella a. sehl

Two souls one body
Was this quote correct? Should it not be, as Aristotle said, one soul inhabiting two bodies? Hymnelouw (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Death of first (in 1457) wife isn't discussed much in this article
2600:1700:6759:B000:F9C8:CB18:D28B:C1EA (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Please clarify titles of Urbino
The info-box at right lists his reign as DUKE of Urbino beginning in 1444, while other text says he was LORD of Urbino from 1444 (the death of the previous DUKE of Urbino), and not Duke until the Pope said so (because of a marriage of between a relative of the Pope and a relative of this article's subject) in 1474. I think there should be some sentences on how the title of "Duke" works in the northern Italy of the day. In English Wikipedia, the vast majority of readers will try to understand a Dukedom in the way that a Dukedom worked/works in England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, and that just doesn't compute for the way this Dukedom Of Urbino descends. Of does it? If the "predecessor" died in 1444 and that only makes this article's subject LORD of Urbino, then who was Duke Of Urbino from 1444 to 1474 and how was the title left vacant so that the Pope could grant it again in 1474?2600:1700:6759:B000:F9C8:CB18:D28B:C1EA (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson