Talk:Leonardo da Vinci

Article is outdated, lacks important data and sources
The problems with this article are too numerous to list exhaustively in this introductory note, but here are a few examples:

Section: Rome and France (1513–1519)

The hypothesis that Leonardo accompanied the Pope to Bologna for the meeting with King Francis I has been rejected for lack of evidence by recent scholarship, incl. Laure Fagnart, "Léonard de Vinci à la Cour de France (2019)" and Domenico Laurenza, "Leonardo da Vinci nella Roma di Leone X," Lettura Vinciana no. 43, 2004, among many others. The article omits a crucial document relating to Leonardo’s displacement from Rome to France, published by Jan Sammer in 2009 in the conference proceedings volume entitled "Léonard de Vinci et la France," specifically a letter with instructions sent by the royal adviser Bonnivet to the French ambassador in Rome, Antonio Maria Pallavicini, requesting the latter to assist Leonardo in his relocation to the French court and to reassure him that he would be well received both by the king and by his mother (Louise de Savoie).

Section: Death

Unsourced errors, such as the claim that Leonardo’s brothers were bequeathed land. They were only bequeathed money. Any decent biography of Leonardo, incl. the one by Laure Fagnart cited above, or Carmen Bambach 2019 opus “Leonardo da Vinci Rediscovered” or Jan Sammer’s "Leonardo da Vinci: The Untold Story of His Final Years" contains the correct information. These are just a couple of examples. The entire article needs a thorough reworking due to its reliance on outdated sources and contrary-to-fact claims for which no source is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.168.82 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A laundry list of complaints isn't the intended use for this template. PianoDan (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The fact that the article has been locked for some unfathomable reason makes it very difficult to do the editing that it so sorely needs. That said, below I will propose a couple changes in the suggested “X to Y” format. As for sources, I provided references to peer-reviewed works by leading experts in the field, yet you still ask me to provide reliable sources. The article as it stands cites many unreliable and error-ridden popularizations by hacks, such as Walter Isaacson or Milena Magnano. Your readers get treated to such nonsense as "Leonardo da Vinci never finished the Mona Lisa because he injured his arm while fainting, experts say". No critical assessment of the reliability of the sources cited is in evidence. The above claim was made by two neurologists who have no clue as to the conventions of Italian Renaissance art. The literature on Leonardo is enormous, so choices have to be made. Now let’s try to do a couple “X to Y” and see if we can make some progress. I know the Leonardo literature well and am not willing to spend the time necessary to improve the article if my corrections get rejected as “laundry lists” or such.
 * X “Leonardo was present at the 19 December meeting of Francis I and Leo X, which took place in Bologna.”
 * Y “There is no documentary basis for the frequently made claim that Leonardo was present at the meeting between Francis I and Leo X, which took place in Bologna from December 11-14.” Citation: Noemi Rubello, Il re, il papa, la città: Francesco I e Leone X a Bologna nel dicembre del 1515, PhD Thesis, Università degli studi di Ferrara (2012); Domenico Laurenza, Leonardo nella Roma di Leone X, Lettura Vinciana XLIII (Giunti, 2004).
 * Reason for the alteration: the documents purportedly supporting this age-old claim have been badly misinterpreted, as shown by Laurenza and endorsed by all reputable scholarship since. Also the meeting between Francis I and Leo X did not take place on 19 December but from 11 to 14 December. Probably the best source on the meeting is Rubello’s dissertation.
 * X before “In 1516, Leonardo entered Francis' service.” insert the following:
 * Y “On 21 March 1516, which was the evening of Good Friday, Antonio Maria Pallavicini, the French ambassador to the Holy See, received a letter sent from Lyon a week previously by the royal advisor Guillaume Gouffier, seigneur de Bonnivet, containing the French king’s instructions to assist Leonardo in his relocation to France and to inform the artist that the king was eagerly awaiting his arrival. Pallavicini was also asked to reassure Leonardo that he would be well received at court, both by the king and by his mother, Louise de Savoie.”
 * Source: Jan Sammer, L’Invitation du roi” in Carlo Pedretti ed., Léonard de Vinci et la France (CB Edizioni, 2009), pp. 29-33.
 * Reason for the insertion: The document is of key importance in relation to Leonardo’s relocation from Italy to France.
 * If these two changes get accepted, I am willing to submit more. 178.255.168.82 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I've deleted the first sentence you mention; that had three citations, but they were all clearly outdated on this point at least – one was from 1909 – so good riddance to them. I've replaced it with your suggested text as an endnote. The guideline WP:PHD is a little ambivalent on using PhD theses as sources, so I've only cited Laurenza and not Rubello. Do you have a page reference for Laurenza? I've also added an adjusted version of the second text you requested. Please continue to make suggestions for improvements to the article. Ham II (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is definitely outdated; will probably require a complete rewrite eventually, aside from the recently re-done birth and remains sections (which are still somewhat lacking).  Aza24  (talk)   16:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for incorporating my suggestions. We’re making good progress and I’m confident the article will be top notch once we’re finished.
 * With the deletion of the sentence regarding Leonardo’s supposed voyage to Bologna, the previous one regarding the conquest of Milan by Francis I is left hanging without a purpose. I would therefore suggest adding: “On Sunday 11 November he attended mass at Santa Maria delle Grazie; the impression made on him by Leonardo’s  in the adjacent monastery may be what inspired the king to invite Leonardo to his court.” Reference, Jan Sammer, "Leonardo’s Voyage to the Court of Francis I" Raccolta Vinciana, vol. 40 p. 117.
 * https://raccoltavinciana.milanocastello.it/sites/raccoltavinciana.milanocastello.it/files/RVFasc40_2023.pdf
 * This addition is not strictly necessary, as it is speculative (although the king’s visit to Santa Maria delle Grazie on the mentioned date is securely documented), but it helps provide context for the subsequent invitation.
 * I would follow this by: "With the death of  on 17 March 1516, Leonardo was left without a patron."
 * To answer your questions: The relevant pages in Laurenza’s monograph are 21 and 22. I can send you a copy if you like.
 * Laurenza should get credit for being the first to note in print that two separate documents from the Carte Strozziane at the Archivio di Stato di Firenze, published in 1884 by Cesare Guasti, were mistakenly read by subsequent generations of scholars as if they were a single one. He concluded (correctly) that the supposed expenses for Leonardo’s voyage to Bologna in December 1515 were in fact expenses incurred by Giuliano de’ Medici’s secretary Paolo Vettori for a voyage undertaken in October of the same year. As a result, there is no longer any documentary support for a voyage by Leonardo to Bologna in December 1515. The relevant documents were reproduced in the exhibition catalogue "Leonardo da Vinci, La Vera Immagine" (Giunti: Florence, 2005), edited by Edoardo Villata, Vanna Arrighi and Anna Bellinazzi, p. 235. The commentary by the latter two scholars fully endorses Laurenza’s observation (while unfairly blaming Guasti for the error). This is a reference that you might consider adding.
 * Further background: The voyage was actually invented in the 19th century in order to explain how Leonardo came to the court of Francis I. It was thought at the time that he accompanied the king to France in January 1516, but then in 1904 Giovanni Battista de Toni and Edmondo Solmi pointed out that Leonardo was still in Rome in August 1516 (according to an annotation in the Codex Atlanticus). Even though the original justification for the voyage was gone, scholarly inertia continued to maintain its reality until quite recently. Laure Fagnart, a leading expert on Leonardo, accepts the fact that there is no evidence for the voyage, however, I think there is no need to pile on references for a negative.
 * As for Rubello, his dissertation is not relevant any more, since the voyage itself is no longer asserted, so no reason for citing him.
 * I would strongly suggest deleting the reference to Giovanni Ambrogio Figino. The claim by the two Italian neurologists in the cited article is untenable, as noted by numerous critics. Such spurious diagnoses of Leonardo are a dime a dozen, and usually worthless, even when published in reputable venues. The drawing which is the basis for the claim (collections of Gallerie dell'Accademia di Venezia) was preparatory to a painting by the same artist (private Italian collection), depicting the two Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Democritus. As per convention, Heraclitus is depicted as weeping and Democritus as laughing.
 * https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Ambrogio-Giovanni-Figino/379325/Heraclitus-and-Democritus-.html
 * The weeping Heraclitus may well represent Leonardo, but 1) the drawing and the painting are not contemporary, as the article states, but date many decades after Leonardo’s death; for the same reason using the drawing for a medical diagnosis is wrongheaded from the start 2) Figino was born c. 1557 and thus, needless to day, never met Leonardo 3) in the painting (in contrast to the drawing) it is Leonardo’s left hand that is visible, whereas Antonio de Beatis, who met Leonardo in October 1517, reports that it was his right hand that was paralysed, 4) Heraclitus’ hand in the painting is not depicted as being paralysed, but rather as holding a handkerchief, presumably to wipe his tears and 5) Figino was a pupil of Lomazzo and may have taken the pose from one of his master’s paintings. See for example:
 * https://www.artnet.com/artists/giovanni-paolo-lomazzo/three-men-with-a-woman-holding-a-cat-D8Yj-mNkDBdR3qSfIv427Q2
 * More next time. 178.255.168.82 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is locked from changes by unregistered editors because of a long history of silly edits by Dan Brown fans, speculation about his mother, people who think he was a time traveller, an alien, a hoax, you name it. If you would register for an account (anonymously if you like) then you will be able to make these changes yourself. See Why create an account?. As has already been acknowledged, the article needs a good spring-clean and you could be a significant contributor rather than doing everything by proxy. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the writing of this article is my work. Can I suggest that instead of suggesting changes, you get yourself a Wikipedia identity, and just do the editing you dee, necessary. When this was written, citations were not so enforced.  But if you get down to trying to cite every line it becomes clumsy.  On the other hand, there is a tendency to grab big chunks of writing and insert. Amandajm (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2024
Change "Since his death, there has not been a time where his achievements, diverse interests, personal life, and empirical thinking have failed to incite interest and admiration,[3][4] making him a frequent namesake and subject in culture."

To "Since his death, his achievements, diverse interests, personal life, and empirical thinking have incited interest and admiration,[3][4] making him a frequent namesake and subject in culture."

Rationale: The use of double negatives in the original passage lacks clarity. The meaning of the sentence would be better conveyed with concise language. Evanffullerton (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your criticism is not unfounded [sic] but text is not a great improvement, IMO. I read it first as since his death, since his achievements, since his diverse .... At least the there has not been a time where... does a good job of introducing the phrase his achievements, diverse interests, .... Can you have another go? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as per JMF. Feel free to reopen the edit request when you both agree on a better alternative. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)