Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 1

List of Leo's paintings
Just copied this from user Ham's talk page

I see that you are simplifying that list. Care is needed. While what you are doing seems like an obvious solution to a messy problem, the arrangement of sections has been very carefully devised to reflect the categories of work in an entirely accurate way, so that it doesn't lead to false assumptions.


 * There is this problem that a 'minority accept several of the pics, but among that minority are some highly reputable people who offer very good reason for their assessment.


 * In other cases the attribution is over a century old, and has not been seriously challenged.


 * On the other hand, Carlo Pedretti's recent attributions have been treated with total scorn by most critics, regardless of the stated presence of a thumbprint. One of the pics is obviously not, but has been seen by very few people, and another is patently by the artist to whom it has always been ascribed. To suggest either is by Leonardo is foolishness. However, Pedretti is well known and both pics have been in the news in recent years. They have to be placed here, becasue if they are not then some well meaning editor will add them as "recently discovered" Leonardo's.


 * The pic of the two babies might very well be a Leonardo, but as far as I know, this has never been seriously looked into by any of the big names.

Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done!
Papa November and Ham, thanks particularly for sorting out all those messy references and misspellings... I think this list is looking really good, and is a very useful general reference.

Amandajm (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, and sorry for not replying to your earlier comments on my talk page. It was one of those occasions when I didn't have time to reply when the orange notice came up, planned to do it later, and soon forgot all about it. I agree with you that lumping the Tobias with Pedretti's attributions is unfortunate, and the best heading that would encompass both is probably 'Recent attributions'. And I've always understood that Pedretti's attributions are little more than his personal hobby horses; I had some reservations about putting Holy Infants Embracing on the template. I will also put the article Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci) up for deletion now.


 * Do you think 'Known only as a copy' could be expanded to 'Lost works', including the Medusa, which has an article, and Salvator Mundi? Ham 12:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's a good idea! You'll need to change the title of the section. Amandajm (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ carrying the cross
I've deleted it from here. Previously, I could only get an abstract of the Forbes article, which looked as if Pedretti had made a definite attribution based on fingerprints. In fact the article gives a different impression entirely. There is no way that I would agree that it is a Leonardo, but Pedretti has more clout. Amandajm (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote the above comment, I have read the whole article which is now available online. The mention of the fingerprints is really very misleading. If you read the article it will become clear that Pedretti backed down.
 * The claim about the preparatory drawings is an odd one, because although there is a face of Christ that is often ascribed to Leonardo, it is nothing like this at all.
 * Also the claim that one face is based on a Leonardo self portrait is odd. Which self portrait?
 * Before these statements can be used in an encyclopedic manner, they need to be backed up by a references that states these things, rather than by the Forbes reference which states something very different. Right now, it is the only reasonably reliable source. Amandajm (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ carrying the Cross part 2
I have just deleted the recent change, yet again. Here are my reasons:
 * 1) The only documentation that we have is the article in Fobes Magazine. This article is full of journalise and misleading info. Even the heading about the fingerprints is misleading because it is mentioned in the article, but not in relation to this painting.
 * 2) The article makes it clear that Carlo Pedretti knew of the de Maineri pics of the same subject and referred to them as the work of "followers", perhaps Leonardo himself. (Pedretti likes to look for the touch of Leonardo's hand in the work of his followers/workshop, just as Kemp and others have looked for the hand of Leonardo in the workshop paintings of Verrocchio.)
 * 3) The article states that Pedretti was offered $5,000 to research the paintings. However, according to the article, relations broke down between Pedretti and the owner. He never (according to Forbes) came back with "Yes, I Carlo Pedretti am convinced this is Leonardo."
 * 4) The "left-handed under drawing" is not mentioned in the Forbes article, and is therefore unreferenced.
 * 5) The statement that Martin Kemp (who is stated to have seen photographs) agreed with Pedretti is also unreferenced. What did he agree with Pedretti over? Pedretti did not come back with any definite statement as to a conviction that this pic is Leonardo, so how could Kemp agree with him that it was? None of this ought to be included unless a positive statement by Pedretti can be referenced with a reliable publication. (not just the "perhaps" in the Forbes Magazine.) The statement that Kemp agrees must also be backed up by a reliable reference.
 * 6) The faces and their similarity to those in the Battle of Anghiari.
 * Luke Brugnara may have noticed a similarity to the preliminary drawings by Leonardo, displayed at the Met. However, even the most cursory examination reveals that the faces in the painting are not based directly on Leonardo's drawings.
 * The Leonardo study of the man on horseback, for example, does not have a hat. The Ruben copy has a hat, like the one that appears in the painting.
 * The details of the features in the Ruben's copy have all been exaggerated and made more Rubensish. This is the form in which they appear in the painting.
 * The editor who keeps making the changes insists that the figure of one tormentor is based on a Leonardo portrait. Neither face is based upon the well-known red chalk drawing with a long beard. So which self-portrait? The editor claims that one of the Anghiari faces is a self-portrait. While this is, of course, a possibility, it is certainly neither a known fact or a theory that is widely agreed. This statement cannot be made in this article without a relieble reference, otherwise it is "Original Research" and not permitted by the wikipedia manual of style.
 * Saying that Leonardo would not copy figures from de Manieri is undoubtedly right. It was Leonardo who led the way in the study and depiction of emotion on the human face. However, Leonardo didn't take figures that he had drawn for one work, and then reuse them in another. He was a master of invention. (Except in the instance of the Virgin of the Rocks where he painted the entire composition twice)

A few more points about the attribution of this painting:
 * Real Leonardos are very rare. Agreed attributions are also very rare. Among the attributions that are subject to query are several quite superb paintings: the Bacchus, La belle Ferroniere, the Portrait of a Musician. Art Historians are not in a rush to declare them "definitely Leonardo". Any new attribution is bound to come under close scrutiny.
 * If those art historians who have a particular interest in Leonardo thought that there was a very real chance that a new one had been discovered, then they would be rushing to view it, subjecting it to examination, comparing it to other works and writing learned papers about it. This hasn't happened. This indicates that they are not convinced.
 * Because of this, and Wikipedia's policy on publishing "Personal Research" (ie unpublished research) we can't write statements about the work that are not backed up by reliable written sources. If Carlo Pedretti or Martin Kemp write an article about the painting, or include the work on a book on Leonardo, then there will be proper reference material.
 * The combining of pictorial elements of different artworks is just the sort of thing that a forger would do. They are also masterly at reusing old panels and aging surfaces. Here's a useful site

Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
OK, this nonsense has gone on for long enough. I'm not a Leonardo expert, so I'm not going to state any opinion about the Christ Carrying the Cross attribution. However, I'm not going to watch the article degenerate into an edit war over this. Amanda has tried repeatedly to start a discussion about the issue, but the IP editor is making no effort to get involved.

I have therefore restored the "previous version" of the article and protected it from edits from new and unregistered users for one week. I hope you'll discuss the matter at this page and reach a consensus about the article content. Papa November (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Text === Comment by IP editor === The individual which has edited "Christ Carrying the Cross" by da Vinci is ingnorant to facts surrounding this painting...for starters:

1.) Sothebys (George Watcher, International Director of Old Masters and Christopher Apostle, Executive Director of Old Masters) have retracted their attribution to De Maineri (which was over 30 years ago)because the figures used in this painting are identical to da Vinci's Battle of Anghiari (1505) and Maineri was dead when da Vincis composed the Anghiari fresco.  That would mean that da Vinci copied Maineri for the Anghiari fresco, which is  absurd....

2.)Alain Goldrich of the MET Museum examined the painting and confirmed the detailed left handed underdrawing and paint strokes, and the age of the wood panel to 1500 -- daVINCI was the ONLY left handed painter of this time period because left handedness was considerd evil and no painter was allowed to paint left handed by their teachers-- this makes da Vincis attributions much easier to identify (and much easier to disqualify).

3.) Martin Kemp of Oxford was forwarded detailed transparencies of the painting by Pedretti and has deferred to Pedretti's opinion until he examines the painting firsthand, which has not happened to date.

4.) The Budapest Museum has a prepartory drawing of the primary attacker in "Christ Carrying the Cross" painting in its permanent collection; this drawing is undisputed by da Vinci. This drawing is also published in the MET Catalgue from 2002 when they showed da Vinci's drawings in an exhibition.

5.) There are three fingerprints imbedded in the paint which match the known prints of da Vinci.  This has been confirmed by forensic fingerprint experts in San Francisco.

6.) FORBES MAGAZINE published this painting on the COVER of their December 2003 magazine and quoted Pedretti as saying that the painting is very possibly by da Vinci.  Since that article Pedretti has affirmed the attribution in correspondence with the present owner. FORBES MAGAZINE is a major international magazine and does not take its cover articles lightly...this was a major publishing of this painting with the cover page.

7.) There are no dissenting opinions regarding this painting from known Leonardo experts and only positive attributions.

DGUMP

dgump1@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.22.158 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply What you have written here might very well be the case. But that does not change the rules of Wikipedia. The rules here are that if you make a statement (within a wikipedia article) that is questionable, you must back it up with written evidence. The only written evidence that we have of Carlo Pedretti's opinion is the tentative one quoted in Forbes Magazine. I had a good search online to see if I could find more written info, but could not.

If you make a statement about Carlo Pedretti or Martin Kemp's opinion, then you need to state a reference. Where have they actually written these opinions? If they have never written them, or stated them directly for publication (by a journal, documentary program etc) then they can't be quoted. It doesn't matter what Pedretti or Kemp might have said in private. It can't be used in the encyclopedia, unless it has been written down and published. Those are the rules.

Amandajm (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reply" I understand the rules of Wikipedia, however you have attributed the painting to Maineri and it is not attributed to Maineri by anyone. Sothebys does not believe this is by Maineri, you are free to call the head of the Old Master Dept. 212-606-7000; the attribution that you mention is over 30 years old and has since been retracted.... You also cannot put the owners name in the article, for security reasons this is improper...I will compromise to "previously attributed to Maineri", with no mention of (owner)....also you are misinformed about Rubens copy of the Battle of Anghiari....the Rubens drawing was copied from the known sketches by DaVinci of the Battle of Anghiari (see biography on Rubens)in the Budapest Museum; Rubens did not compose the idea. Finally, you state that Pedretti was "tenantive" in his attribution; that is your interpretation as you were not there nor do you know Pederetti. In fact, the FORBES article quoted Pedretti as being familiar with the painting and stating that it is perhaps by da Vinci..Pedretti also has been published in many books as stating several of the "attributed paintings" listed (in Wikipedia) are only 10-20% by da Vinci.

dgump1@aol.com  8/11/09


 * Of course Sotherby's retracted the attribution.
 * Owner's name now removed.
 * Ruben's drawing was based on an engraving by a different artist. No-one has ever suggested that Ruben's composed the idea.
 * However, when looking for a source (eg the source of the tormentors) an art hiatorian looks closely at finer points of the detail. The finer points of detail indicate that the faces in the painting in question were probably based on the Ruben's copy of a copy, rather than on anything that Leonardo did himself.

Amandajm (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Tentative" has gone, I believe.
 * As for Pedretti's opinions as to which bits of what paintings are by Leonardo: Yes, his opinion has been taken into account, along with a lot of others. That is why the List Article states which paintings are firmly attributed and which are not.

reply:


 * The final sentence in parenthesis needs to be removed as the other "similar paintings" are not attributed to Maineri, or anyone else, because they are lost since WWII according to Pedretti...also, this painting is not copied from any Rubens drawing because Alain Goldrich head restorer from the Metropolitan Museum NYC thoroughly examined the paint and panel from this painting and determined both to be from c. 1500 (this was in the published in the FORBES article).

You should checkout the Budapest Museum da Vinci drawings online. You will be pleased to see the orignal drawings/sketches for Battle of Anghiari, which used these exact figures from "Christ Carrying the Cross".

dgump

Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress
Can I add Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress to this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by As instructed (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Drawing or painting?
As editor Postdlf points out in an edit summary, this work is described in the press as a "mixed media drawing". The term "drawing" is by custom applied to the technique of water-colour and also to ink-wash (which both employ a paintbrush) as well as to the media of pencil, chalk, crayon and charcoal. I am quite happy to have this work listed as a "painting". I think it would be pedantic in the extreme to insist it is a drawing. As a matter of fact, works in chalk or pastel (by Degas and others) are sometimes referred to as "pastel paintings" even though employing a completely dry medium and no brush.

Amandajm (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we already have the National Gallery cartoon in the list. That & other drawings might go in a separate section, & if we have articles on the notebooks it might make sense to add them & retitle to "Works". Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Expansion to include all Works sounds good – we already have List of works by Michelangelo. Ham 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And Goya, Picasso & many others Category:Lists of paintings is already an outdated name and should be renamed. In fact use of "painting" when "works" would be better is a general problem in art coverage in WP, coming from the popular media.  Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the page. Of course, now it'll have to cover the Codices and various works on paper. Ham 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Amandajm (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost Isabella D'Este portrait apparently found
Based on this, should the list be updated? Manxruler (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * far too soon, imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

why no Portrait of a man in red chalk (Leonardo)
why there is no Portrait of a man in red chalk (Leonardo) in this list?-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvator Mundi
Painting was "discovered" as Leonardos around 2007. And was shown only once (ONCE !!!) to general public after heavy restoration (or rather repainting). And only sources, stating that this painting is by Leonardo comes only from this painting owners. I think its really too early to put it in a list as "generally accepted". That is untrue. Also, citted source "Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan. London: National Gallery." states nothing about its "status as an "original"". --Submixster (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe now, after the Christie's auction and record-breaking sale price, it is without a doubt universally accepted as an authentic da Vinci. I am moving it with citations.-Chimino (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg

Changes to Da Vinci's Horse and Rider
Many of the references require a subscription and are inaccessible without one, yet, even with a subscription, some have been removed. Other's are very outdated and inaccurate. For example, they mention that no sculptures exist when many news agencies reported 9 March 2019 that a new has (NPR). Also, several of the articles are written in Italian and have various interpretations. This is confusing to the majority of English speakers who don't understand Italian on this English page. Lastly, there seem to be critical remarks about the piece, which is fine, but best left to the page for the piece itself. No other piece on this entire page mentions the word "critical" except here. Shacho19 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad the WP:BRD cycle has begun. I am not sympathetic to Shacho19's point, as foriegn language references should not be removed just because they are foreign; It should be noted that the editor that added Horse and Rider to this article, User:Jwpetty1951 (talk), has a clear conflict of interest in regards to the statue, as can be seen at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_116, Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_132, and Talk:Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci).--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the contested edits, per the WP:BRD cycle as there is no consensus to change the article. Also, having had to look (again) at the various references targeted by the recent removal (and being reminded of the COI activity surround the statue), I will move the statue and accompanying information under the disputed subheading, which is more appropriate given the cited sources. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this item has received so much attention and debate. The WP:BRD cycle is a record of the passion and concerted dedication many people have regarding this piece; remaining forever vigilant in monitoring the changes.  SamHolt6 sympathized with my changes and then abandoned it by adding "not" in front of "sympathy."  I think the record should document your change of heart and not mask it by making it appear I never had support for my changes; that makes the process appear a bit duplicitous.  And before any unilateral changes switching the piece from "attributed" to "disputed" a democratic process should allow a vote to decide.  Shacho19 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted, but Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, and BRD is not a shield to be used to discard content you disagree with. My recent move, for example, only re-ordered the article, and did not effect even a mote of content, and is readily backed with six references. Your changes, on the other hand, entailed the removal of six long-standing references, and a view of WP:RSN shows that no effort was made to have these references judged on their reliability. As for my accidental omission of "not", note that my comment clearly noted the past COI issues that have surrounded this article; my later comments also re-affirmed this, and expanded in that I also expressed my views on the reference removal. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyways, the article as it stands now has Horse and Rider filed under the "Disputed attributions" subheading; the text and accompanying references are unchanged from the months-old current incarnation. The text concerning the figure's disputed attribution to Da Vinci have been in place for months, and six references are used to cite this content. These references, though recently removed and then reinstated, are per policy considered to be reliable, as no effort has been undertaken to have the proven to be unreliable at WP:RSN. This seems to be a stable incarnation of the article, and it should be kept pending a policy-based reason to change it. Pinging, as they also reverted the removal of these same references. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that moving the piece to disputed is the best place for it.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that a democratic process is not a democracy in this context. And I agree that we should restore the piece to the original form of a week ago.  I will admit, that I think there is much more to this discussion that lies on the surface. I have no idea why this piece has garnered such concern, but it is a great way to bring attention and dialogue to the process.  shacho19 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You left out "not" in your original comment? You have demonstrated an adroit command of the English language, Sam, and you would have used the correct form "unsympathetic."  What's really going on here?  This is my first real contribution to Wikipedia, but quite frankly is just too much effort to continue.  shacho19 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I might ask, what motivated you to choose these particular edits to this particular piece as your "first real contribution to Wikipedia"?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes yes, I fully admit to making grammatical mistakes, but back to the issue at hand. It should be understood that the sources cited clearly list the work in question as disputed; indeed, Making and Moving Sculpture in Early Modern Italy (published in 2017, I believe) clearly states that "No undisputed sculpture by Leonardo survives". This alone is enough to back a listing of Horse and Rider as being disputed... and we have five other sources that raise similar doubts. In addition, your recent removal of references are unacceptable, especially considering you have been reverted in this area twice before. If these links are broken, they should be repaired... not that this is the case here, as the Boston Globe reference you removed clearly has a transcript of the cited part of the article, while the Christian Science Monitor source is easily accessible via ProQuest. Neither should have been removed. But i digress... what references are cited that state the article is either a new attribution or that the statue is undisputed? SamHolt6 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's best that we simply agree to disagree, agreeably. I think the we should restore the article to the was it has been for years - as no recent information has been discovered to the contrary.  Putting our differences aside, we should do what is best for the integrity of the article and cull any sources that are not verifiable.  The links I removed are dead or inaccessible - don't you truly think we should remove them?  I will continue to maintain a dialog and I do appreciate your understanding.  shacho19 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will answer to the best of my ability, and clarify some of my comments above in this response. To begin, no, the article will not be returned to its previous state pending a major change in the relevant discourse. The change I made to the article did not add or remove content, only changed the order of said content to match several cited sources; your revert of my change was consistently challenged by User:BubbaJoe123456. In addition, the content you seek to restore was put in place by User:Jwpetty, an editor (Pining  as they were involved with this COI activity) who per their own disclosure and Talk:Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci) had a vested interest in listing Horse and Rider as a recent attribution; this effectively leaves no stable, non COI version of this segment of the articles content. In this discussion, you have also yet to respond to my or BubbaJoe's concerns about content, nor indicate why the Horse and Rider segment should not reflect the longstanding citations it has attached to it, six of which dispute the attribution of the statue to Da Vinci. As for the your removal of references, note that Wikipedia has policies regarding the maintenance of references. As I have stated before, if you believe the references to be unreliable, the burden is on you to have these references struck down as unreliable by WP:RSN. If this is not the case, then older references should be cleanup up and archived rather than removed; this was expressed to you multiple times by myself and another editor, and yet you persist. I could continue, but the recent (started during the writing of this response) may solve this issue. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an RfC on this issue, to get some further input, although I certainly agree that we shouldn't be removing citations.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Horse and Rider
Should the wax statue entitled Horse and Rider on the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci page be included in the Recent Attributions or Disputed Attributions section?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support for 'Disputed' - the work Horse and Rider should be grouped in the table reading "Disputed Attributions", as a large number of references indicate that the attribution of said statue is disputed. The sources can be broken down fairly easily:
 * The first source is a 1997 article, "The Vision of Leonardo", published by the The New York Review of Books. The article requires a subscription to read, but the pertinent quote reads "no existing sculpture can be attributed to him with any certainty. [... the Bust of Christ as a Youth] was unfortunately placed in the exhibition next to a bizarre object, a wax statuette of a rider on a bucking horse never before seen in public. In the explanatory label, the statuette was said to have belonged to Francesco Melzi, a student and companion of Leonardo, a provenance unfortunately based on hearsay. [...] I fail to see the point of presenting to the uninformed visitor highly debatable hypotheses as if they were confirmed."
 * Source #2 is a 1997 article in The Christian Science Monitor. The pertinent quote reads "Whether Leonardo made this small wax figure is a source of contention among experts. Although the piece is unsigned, it is attributed to him in the exhibit."
 * Source #3 is from a 1997 article in the Boston Globe. The pertinent quote reads "'There is no single work of sculpture which Leonardo worked on that survived to today," Wasserman said. "Yes, it could be 'attributed to' Leonardo, but you need to have a compelling reason for doing so. Since nothing survived, there is no way to judge a piece of sculpture like this.'"
 * Source #4 is an article from an Italian newspaper in 2016. This source attributes the attribution of Horse and Rider to Da Vinci with a quote from Carlo Pedretti, who said "In my opinion, this wax model is by Leonardo himself".
 * Source #5 is an article from an Italian newsite in October 2016. It contains several quotes from Vittorio Sgarbi, who criticizes Pedretti's attribution of Horse and Rider. The pertinent quote reads ""Speaking of Leonardo the sculptor is thorny. There is no evidence, nor can any comparisons be made since there are no supporting data, safe specimens. I reserve the right to see it live, but it is better to proceed with caution ». Dote that does not belong to the curator of the exhibition Ernesto Solari who has always been excessively generous in attributions."
 * Source #6 is a 2017 book, and thus to my knowledge the most contemporaneous source the Wikipedia article cites. The book, Making and Moving Sculpture in Early Modern Italy, contains this quote: "While no undisputed sculpture by Leonardo survives, evidence that he made sculpture is plentiful." This recent source is fairly definitive.
 * Compiling all of these sources together, it is clear that the attribution of the sculpture of Leonardo is disputed. More importantly, no source claims the statue is the indisputable work of Da Vinci, nor do any refute those who dispute this attribution. To my knowledge, all of the sources cited that attribute Horse and Rider to Da Vinci stem from the 1985 attribution made in (per this source ) the opinion of Carlo Pedretti--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support for 'Disputed' - there is clearly a great deal of debate about the authenticity of the sculpture, and the references are very mixed. In addition, one of the sources notes the Pedretti declared the sculpture to be authentic over thirty years ago.  Hence, the attribution can't reasonably be described as "Recent."BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support for 'Recent' - Many of the dissenting references for this piece are inaccessible, written in Italian and can lend itself to diametrically opposed interpretations when translated, or just not found, i.e., the link is abandoned, broken, or never existed. And to be clear, by recent, when the scope for this piece is centuries old, could be easily within the last 100 years.  Further, Carlo Pedretti's attribution carries significantly more weight than the obscure and unknown authors of the blog or news articles referenced.  It seems a deliberate assassination of this piece, perpetrated by BubbaJoe123456 (talk) and SamHolt6 (talk), are at play.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shacho19 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to respond to your comments User:Shacho19 point-by-point.
 * You stated that many sources are inaccessible, unreliable, or in Italian. My response would be all of the sources can be viewed in this revision of the article at the Horse and Rider panel. All inaccessible sources have transcripts attached, and all can be found in archives. If you believe I have misconstrued a quote, name which one. The links to the Italian sources work, and Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources translated from other languages. Have you done your do diligence and had any of these sources struck down at WP:RSN? If not, they are generally considered to be reliable.
 * I don't quite understand your comment "And to be clear, by recent, when the scope for this piece is centuries old, could be easily within the last 100 years." Do we have sources regarding this work that stretch that far back? If not, how is it relevant to an encyclopedia given that such types of collections are based on what is in reliable sources?
 * I question your comment "Carlo Pedretti's attribution carries significantly more weight than the obscure and unknown authors of the blog or news articles referenced". According to who? Several of the sources cited dispute his attribution, included the famous art critic Vittorio Sgarbi. Why should we give Pedretti's opinions undue weight?
 * What of the 2017 print source, Making and Moving Sculpture in Early Modern Italy? It seems to definitively state that no statue by Da Vinci is undisputed, and was published decades after Pedretti's attribution.
 * You mentioned some of the sources I cited were blogs, mistranslated or unreliable: which ones?
 * Thanks in advance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to comments My responses to User:SamHolt6 follow.  I will add more as requested physical information arrives in post.
 * Firstly, I would like to thank you for your time, disciplined discussion and willingness to speak openly about our differences.
 * Bullet point #3: This cites Vittorio Sgarbi, whom I've just learned from his Wiki page was condemned for fraud against the Italian State. Not exactly the "expert" I would choose to champion my cause. Did you know this?  So, no, I don't trust his opinion whether it's for or against.  In contrast, I value Carlo Pedretti over the fraudster because Pedretti was the professor emeritus of art history at UCLA, and one of the world’s leading scholars on Leonardo da Vinci. He held the Armand Hammer Chair in Leonardo Studies until he retired in 1993.  Please check out this page on the UCLA site: In memoriam: Carlo Pedretti, 89, art historian and da Vinci scholar.
 * Bullet point #4: The reference you provided is broken so I can't go there, but I completely 100% agree with you "It seems to definitively state that no statue by Da Vinci is undisputed." See, we do have some common ground.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shacho19 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment hello again. I will respond using bullet points, as before.
 * To begin, you are correct that Sgarbi was indicted for tax fraud in 1996. How does this disqualify him from providing opinions on art history? Indeed, the source that quotes him was published in 2016, two decades after his conviction: I will reaffirm that the burden is on the questioner to have a source declared unreliable by WP:RSN. Also, what of the other sources cited?
 * Pedretti was beyond a doubt a great scholar, but why should his opinion be given more weight than other scholars? Keep in mind Wikipedia is not an academic journal or scholarly source; rather it is the sum of human knowledge. For this reason, all information from reliable sources should theoretically be represented, and in this case the clear opinion by some is that this work's attribution should be disputed.
 * While I think my rewording of the 2017 source is clear, I will state it from the text again: "While no undisputed sculpture by Leonardo survives, evidence that he made sculpture is plentiful." This is, I find, a clear indication that the author (who published their work in 2017) thinks that 'no undisputed sculpture by Leonardo survives, which is a fairly iron-clad indication that Horse and Rider should be grouped under the Disputed Works table of this article by definition.
 * For the record, I think BubbaJoe's question as to why work attributed by Pedretti in 1985 qualifies as a Recent Attribution should be answered.
 * Finally, you should comment on my main point, that being (from above) no source claims the statue is the indisputable work of Da Vinci, nor do any refute those who dispute this attribution. Can this be disputed using Wikipedia policy?
 * Thanks in advance again. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's a thought - why does this article have separate Disputed and Recent sections? We can just combine them into a single section, and call it something like "Works Without Consensus Attribution."  Thoughts?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Disputed and Recent sections as "Works without consensus on attribution", placed below "Lost works". The Lucan portrait is already in both sections. Pinging and  as past contributors to this talk page. Ham II (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree Brilliant idea and I'm not sure why such an obvious solution never occurred to me before. This strengthens the article and makes clear what's going on without causing the confusion from having two categories.  Good job, BubbaJoe and Ham II! Shacho19 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably best - are there any undisputed recent attributions? Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the change works, and my impression (from my time with the Horse and Rider sources) is that future attributions will likely never achieve consensus on authenticity; in short, Works without consensus on attribution works. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for merger - From my understanding, none of the recent attributions are universally accepted as belonging to Leonardo, so they fit in a broader category with those with uncertain attribution. If any new data or research emerges which pushes one of them towards near universal acceptance, then it can be moved in the main table at a later time. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Question on references
User:Shacho19, your references are lacking. c. 1506–1508 (Moffatt 1990) This reference is based on a passing mention of a wax statuette. She's not saying that the thing is by Leonardo, or that it's from 1506-1508. That's not attribution, and whoever added that here must've made it up. I'm removing it. c. 1508–1511 (Solari 2016) This reference is to an exhibition brochure, written by the curator who charged €5 entrance for this piece. Is he notable? The refs for other works in the list don't cite museum officials. This doesn't hold up as attribution on a list like this. c. 1506–1508 (Pedretti 1985) Citing private correspondence. Is that the best reference there is?? The Wikipedia article about it refers to. Is that all there is in that book about it? --Stayinrage (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Why are you restoring the Moffatt reference? I do not think it says what you think it says. --Stayinrage (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Number of autograph paintings
This article in The Art Newspaper says that most scholars would put the number of paintings entirely by Leonardo's hand somewhere from 15 to 17. This doesn't square with the following sentence in our lede: Fifteen artworks [sic – not paintings] are generally attributed either in whole or in large part to him. Neither does it correspond with the "Major extant works" section. (7 × universally accepted paintings; 11 × generally accepted paintings, with the Salvator Mundi rather nonsensically being "generally accepted, but disputed by several specialists".) I'm pretty sure that the Madonna Litta being "generally accepted" by scholars can't be right either. When I've got the right books to hand I'll try to fix this. Ham II (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Lost works - Adam and Eve
"c. mid 1460s – early 1470s"; "Painted for the King of Portugal"

I'm not a da Vinci expert, but since he was born in 1452 this would mean he was painting for the King of Portugal age 12-15. He didn't enter Andrea del Verrocchio's workshop until age 14 (1464) so chronologically it's very unlikely he did his Adam and Eve work mid 1460s, and unlikely he did it in the early 1470s.

The citataton link leads to ISBN which I can't get a free version of.

Should we be changing this date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misslippysgreencar (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)