Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 3

Born in Italy?
Born In Italy? I dont think Italy was unified when he was born —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.129.28 (talk)


 * Yes, it's been said several times before. In this matter I'm happy to be guided by the Italian editors who have contributed this page and who aren't arguing with it. Italy is as geographic area, as well as a modern political area. --Amandajm 01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Italy exists, in Italy cannot Patent Technologies, and for sure Leonardo and Galileo wouldn't be Italians. But they never knew of Italy... And your Italian editors were better explain how, the great country of scientists and inventors like Italy today cannot patent nor develop technologies, and pharmaceuticals have to be imported with Monopolies on top, and costs 3 time the price the same products cost in the other countries... --Benattiluca 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Use your common sense, if France now invades Germany would Beethoven be French?

Brugnara's Carrying the Cross
User Dominicgump has edited a number of articles on Brugnara, or inserted links to him. He has fowarded the claim by Brugnara that this person's painting belongs to Leonardo. The evidence is flimsy as stated in Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci). It would be pretentious for Wikipedia to think that it can be the arbiter of disputed authorship, but this seems to be an attempt by Dominicgump to at least give credence to that notion. Dominicgump removed the disputed attribution to the painting in the list of this entry. I advocate that it remain there, if not remove the painting from the list altogether. CARAVAGGISTI 05:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently it's the most disputed painting on the list. Can't even find it at the site about Leo's fingerprints. I'd like to get a close look at the thing! Nearly everything that has recently been put forward as a possible Leonardo (Madonna of the Rock No. 3 for example) obviously isn't. The pic of the two babies is the only possible contender that I've seen lately. An beautiful Mary Magdalene went up for auction recently as a supposed Leonardo. No way! --Amandajm 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I give up, Dominicgump seems to think that he knows what is a Leonardo and what isn't despite the absence of proof. Someone else want to enlighten him?CARAVAGGISTI 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty comments on Len
"A word means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more and no less," said Humpty Dumpty (or something like that - I'm quoting from memory). So what does the word "illustrated" mean, as in:

the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper occupy unique positions as the most famous, the most illustrated and most imitated portrait and religious painting of all time.

I'd bean (words again meaning exactly what I wish them to mean, except that in this case the word "bean" can indeed mean the past participle of the verb to be, and not a legume) under the impression that all paintings were illustrated, rather as all babies are wet and all politicians honest. Or does "illustrated" perhaps mean "reproduced"? PiCo 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Clever PiCo! You got it right! U meen u want-metre fixit? --Amandajm 14:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Len the sculptor
The introduction says he was a sculptor. I'm not aware of a single sculptue still extant - the bronze horse was, so far as I know, his only attempt at the form, and was more notable as a piece of engineering (how to make it support itself on two rear legs alone) than as a work of art. Ammanda, what say you?PiCo 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't be bothered (that's a as in want, OK?) If everyone wants him to be everything (and all that as well) I'm not going to bother. I wan't to do Gothic Architecture and Len's getting in my way by appearing on my watch list everytime I turn round. Why did I do it? After all, they did think he did the Virgin with the Laughing Child, (No he didn't) but Vasari says he did some little models for the studio. There probably making them in fluro plastic. Len would have loved it. Need Coffee!--Amandajm 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 3
Archived material up to start of June 2007. If you think this removes material that should be kept on the active page, please cut/paste back in. PiCo 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Person "persecuted under anti-homosexuality laws"?
I've removed Da Vinci from the category "People persecuted under anti-homosexuality laws." While Da Vinci was anonymously accused of pederasty, and subsequently brought to trial, he was acquitted after a few months of investigation. This hardly amounts to "persecution."--User:Schlier22 11:09, 3 July 2007
 * I disagree with you POV on this matter. Confining a young man of twenty, who was renowned for his physical beauty and who was personally fanatically fastidious, in a public lockup with other men who had been caught having sex with street boys under the Ponte Vecchio would have constituted a quite appalling punishment for any homosexual act that he might have actually committed. That is the probable reality of his situation. What is more, doesn't an "anonymous accusation" constitute persecution? --Amandajm 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense that if this catagory was to be included to have the information why in the article with citation though? --Xiahou 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I propse the creation of "Categorypedia", a plce where all those who care can discuss these matters till the Second Coming.PiCo 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We could simply revert the page to where it was last year- everything that has ever been known, speculated or hinted about his sexuality and 'nothing about his paintings. You really wouldn't have known that he had done one. This article cannot say everything because the length bbecomes unweildy. You could go on thinking of points and saying, oh yes, this page doesn't say he was vegetarian. This page doesn't say he bought birds and released them. This page doesn't say he wore red and yellow cross-gartered stockings with a polkadot codpiece and purple cloak with sky blue lining. This article doesn't tell us which hand he picked his nose with. (Actually, they removed the evidence in that disastrous restoration of the Last Supper.) There is now a separate page to discuss his private life ad nauseum. leonardo da Vinci's personal life

--Amandajm 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the category "People persecuted under anti-homosexuality laws" from da Vinci's page because da Vinci was actually accused of violating a law which prohibited sodomy and not homosexuality (the sexual attraction to members of the same sex). A law prohibiting homosexuality would be impossible to enforce.--Schlier22 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your POV on "anti-homosexuality laws" aside, he was confined under laws that address homosexual behaviour. Pairadox 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was confined under laws that prohibited homosexual behavior, then you ought to alter the category to "People persecuted under laws prohibiting homosexual behavior," or something to that effect. As it stands, dubbing laws prohibiting sodomy as "anti-homosexual" is just as absurd as designating laws prohibiting traditional rape as "anti-heterosexual."--Schlier22 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to nominate the category for renaming. In the meantime, I suggest you read Violence against LGBT people and Homosexuality laws of the world. Pairadox 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you make such a suggestion?-Schlier22 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's totally comparing apples to oil filters, Schleir22. While people of various genders have been prosecuted for rape of people of various genders, the vast majority of people prosecuted for sodomy have been homosexual - the terms were even synonymous at various points in history.  I'm returning the category. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  02:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rape is primarily a crime of force, that is, forcing sex against the victim's will. Rape is non-consensual, sodomy is consensual (if it isn't, it's also rape). That is, rape can be heterosexual or homosexual. Rape is not used to oppress heterosexuals, but sodomy is used to oppress homosexuals. In Homosexuality & Civilization by Louis Crompton (Harvard University Press, 2003) it says: "During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, harsh legal sanctions against homosexuality routinely found their justification in Christian teaching."  Also, "Nowhere, however, was the church's involvement in the persecution of homosexuals more direct than in Spain during the most active years of the Spanish Inquisition."  And finally, and importantly, "For many centuries in Europe, homosexuality was conceived principally as certain sexual acts."  So it was viewed as both a sin and a capital crime. The thrust of most of Compton's book is about the oppression, persecution, murder, and execution of homosexuals throughout much of history (with some notable exceptions such as ancient Greece, Japan, China, and Moorish Spain).  He noted that the history of homosexuality in the West is a "kaleidoscope of horrors". To me, the argument that sodomy persecution—or the persecution of any same-sex behavior—isn't anti-homosexual in nature is just ridiculous and disingenuous.  — Becksguy 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article
Why is this not yet a featured article, surely it contains enough detail?
 * Because no-one's put it up? But the first step would be Peer Review. PiCo 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've reviewed it, PiCo!. I've been through this horrid process once before. The article is now very muchh better than it was previously, when it was a featured article. However, I can't cope with the sort of nit-picking that can go on, when you put up an article. There are some featured articles that have virtually no inline references. They have probably been reviewed by someone who knows the subject and recognises the substance. But if you are sufficiently unlucky as to get reviewed by someone who knows nothing about art and little about biography and wants even the most straightforward material like "The Mona Lisa is an oil painting on panel" inline referenced, then it all becomes a pain. --Amandajm 12:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dinner party with Leonardo
Having perfected my time machine last weekend while watching the cricket - an activity which has something of eternity about it - I tested it out with a quick trip to Milan, 1498. Leonardo was there. Quite pissed off with what the French were doing to his horse, so naturally he jumped at the chane of a dinner party in the 21st century. Poor man seems to think there's been some progress between his time and this: "A world-a safe-a for-a art!" he said. (He was Italian, you know). So anyway, now I need to fill out the guest list. I think 12 people would be about right. There's me, Leo, and you. That leaves, uh, what's 12 minus 3? Do I hear 9? Ok, so, your task is to suggest nine names, from any age or place, to come to dinner with Leonardo next Saturday. Oh, names and reasons for inviting them, please! The time machine is currently being fueled - it runs, oddly enough, on Chardonnay. PiCo 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not having Mick the Party Pooper. And I'm not having Battered Sav. And I could do without that Borgia woman and her lovable brother. Don't want that borish old Julius who reckons he's never read a book in his life. --Amandajm 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know! let's invite Ghengis Khan, Cassandra, Lord Byron, Amelia Earhart, Jules Verne, Elton John, the Whitlams, and Lady Catherine de Burgh. Amandajm 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo's birthplace
Although sometimes given as Anchiano, which was where he spent his infancy, it seems, according to the diary of his grandfather, that he was born in his Grandfather's house in Vinci, where he lived with his father, stepmother, grandfather and uncle from the age of about five. Amandajm 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference?
Hi guys, what's going on with this reference? In the "Professional life, 1476–1519" section, we seem to be referencing Wikipedia itself? "In 1482 Leonardo, whom Vasari tells us was a most talented musician, created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse's head. Lorenzo de’ Medici was so impressed with this that he decided to send both the lyre and its maker to Milan, in order to secure peace with Ludovico il Moro, Duke of Milan . "  Who is Rossi?-Malkinann 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know! seems quite unnecessary. You want to fix it? --Amandajm 07:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems it may refer to, so I've changed the self-reference to a cite book to the book. -Malkinann 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Add an information
Hello, I would like to add an information to the "recent attributions" section, please help writing it in a good english:


 * Mary Magdalene, recently attributed as a Leonardo by Carlo Pedretti. Previously regarded as the work of Giampietrino who painted a number of similar Magdalenes.[45] This attribution is not accepted by other scholars, for example Carlo Bertelli (former director of the Brera Art Gallery in Milan) in an article in Il Corriere della Sera said this painting is not by Leonardo and the subject could be a Lucretia with the knife removed (Carlo Bertelli, Due allievi non fanno un Leonardo, in "Il Corriere della Sera", november 19, 2005 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6291/bertellileonardosr5.jpg ).--Diego Cuoghi 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --Amandajm 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

caterina slave point
Pico, if you are going to delete that point (I have no view, except I would discuss first) you need to remove the note too, and renumber all the alphabetic ones from that point, above and below. I will revert while you think about it. Johnbod 03:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Voyager
The link to the episode is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerning_Flight

However, I've compiled a brief list of Da Vinci specific things here: http://www.deviantart.com/download/68193920/Concerning_flight_by_NemFX.rtf

NemFX 16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistants and pupils
Is that subsection really necessary? Part of it could go into the Personal Relations subsection, and most of it's extremely peripheral. PiCo 08:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What did Leonardo da Vinci invent?
what did he invent????!!!!! He invented the Mona Lisa!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More facts please
do you people have any more facts about da Vinci? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Go to Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor. Amandajm (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dying in Francis' Arms
Although a minor point, note p regarding the impossibility of dying in King Francis' arms should perhaps be toned down. Some sources have pointed out that the decree in question was signed by a minister of the king, rather than the king himself, so it is possible that the king was not actually there to issue it. For example, this is discussed briefly in "Leonardo: The First Scientist" by White. Thanks. 96.227.192.253 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Amandajm (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuscan v Italian
Why Tuscan/Italian nationality? Tuscany is a region of Italian state, how can it be called a "nation" is beyond me. By the same token you should claim american people nationality is Californian/American, Mississipian/American, and so on. Sorry but it just makes no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.239.36 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo as a Tuscan It's not quite like that. Italy didn't exist as a political unit when Leonardo was alive. It only existed as a geographic land mass.

The important political units were cities, and people identified strongly with their city, so painters from Florence are usually called Florentine painters rather than Italian painters. Leonardo lived in the region of Tuscany which, by his time was mostly ruled by Florence. He was born in a small town in Tuscany. He would have identified himself as Tuscan. He would not have identified himself as Italian.

Moreover, although identifying wth a city was politically important, people fom all the cities belong to the geographical region of Tuscany, even if the cities were rivals. So if you came from Siena or Pisa or Volterra or San Gimigniano you were a Tuscan by birth. But you might (and probably did) hate the Florentines who dominated the region.

Vinci was only a little town near Florence. Florence was one of the wealthiest cities in Europe because of the production of fine cloth, and because of international banking. So there was a lot of rich families who could afford artworks, which meant that there were art studios where someone with talent could be trained. That is why Leonardo is a Florentine painter, not a Vincian painter.

Even in the US, when referring to a style of art or architecture, you might refer to a city or a region, like the Chicago school, for example. Amandajm 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not just how Leonardo might have thought of himself, but how he would have generally been described by others. He might have been a Tuscan to Italian, but to foreigners, including the English, he would have been a Florentine or an Italian. He should certainly be described initially in a formula that includes "Italian" - or avoids adjectives altogether. As an attempt at a "nationality" Tuscan clearly won't do. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Julius Caeser is described in his article as being Roman, Gautama Buddha is described as being from Ancient India, despite being born in modern Nepal, Otto von Bismarck is described as being Prussian (and German). 'Italian' didnt exist as a nationality in the 15th century. 'Tuscan' did. Leonardo was tuscan and this article should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.78.244 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo
I just reverted your edit as being inappropriate. The article states that he was multi-talented and a "Renaissance man". Poetry was part of this general concept. It is obvious that not every sphere of activity can be full dealt with in an article of that length, so the article deals most fully with his primary area of fame, painting. But to delete from the list an aspect of the man's creativity just because it is not elaborated on is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the wiki intro. As for his musicanship, it is further mentioned in the biographical section.

Amandajm (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit to the lead sentence, removing "poet" and "musician" from the things Leonardo da Vinci is known for, was far from "inappropriate." The lead is supposed to state the things the subject is significant for and summarize the contents of the article. If Leonardo is so significant as a musician and a poet, then why isn't it in the article? If the article cannot even muster a sentence about his poetry, then it should not be in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. As for his musicianship, there is only one sentence where a person is quoted as saying he played music well, and no other mention of this in the article; therefore it should not be in the lead, because this makes the lead, well, misleading. It's an assertion that leads nowhere. You will notice that I did not delete the mention that he plays music -- I have no problem with that sourced mention. But one mention from a friend that he played music well does not mean that he should be called a musician in the lead. There is no support in the article for the assertion that he was significant as a performing musician. Millions of people play musical instruments well, but this does not make them significant/famous as musicians. Should every famous person who has the ability to play an instrument well be mentioned as a musician in the lead of their article if that's not what they're famous for? Of course not.


 * Look, if you can show that Leonardo was reknowned and influential for his poetry and musical performances or compositions, then by all means add that to the article and thus back the lead's assertion. If you cannot do so, then "poet" and "musician" should not be in the lead sentence. But I don't have the appetite or time to struggle with you over it. Hopefully someone else will also see this flaw in the article and correct it, one way or the other. --Melty girl (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While the ideal "Renaissance man" was expected to be a writer of poetry, and da Vinci is seen as the epitome of this ideal, to state that this means he must have been a poet is synthesis and therefore not appropriate. Best regards, Steve  T • C 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not, like Michelangelo, renowned as a poet. He was renowned as a musician, and as such, was sent to Lud's court. Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)