Talk:Portrait of a Musician/Archive 1

Lead
A challenge at a potential FAC might be that statements in the lead are not covered or expanded upon in the article bidy, eg re Early Netherlandish painting. Might be an idea to comb through these. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Early Netherlandish is mentioned in the historical context section, but not clearly – I'll see what I can do. I have been meaning to review the lead, probably after whenever I finally do the critical opinion section. Aza24 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tap, tap, tap ;) Ceoil  (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The history and attribution sections overlap in many ways; suggest a merge. Also, a 'weird way', the article doesn't clarify. Weird to me re fingers is Portrait of Francesco d'Este. Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, I don't think I'm going to merge completely (since there's unrelated things like the modern exhibitions and it's acquiring to the museum) but I'll move a lot of it to the attribution section... I have all my books out now so hopefully some progress will be made in addressing the various issues. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I've added a small critical opinion section, soon to be expanded. As I was looking through the sources though I think I'm going to have to rewrite the attribution section.... lol, I had received some new books between now and when I first wrote it and there's a lot more to be said! Aza24 (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil... lol I have to know, why do you dislike "private patron" so much? I used it because it's the term used in the source, presumably to differentiate from a "public patron" (say a commision for a public place?). Also the dramatic shift is from the portrait not being in profile, like almost all previous Milanese portraits – so the shift is a cultural one in Milan, not one in Leonardo's work, is that clear enough in the text or not? And yes I will nom in the next one or two days... Aza24 (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alliteration for one, and also the wording suggest somebody commissioning nudes for their quarters. Anyway, private or public display is the more general term. Ceoil  (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Well, he did get close... Aza24 (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the article is very fine otherwise, and best of luck my friend. The first FAC will be the hardest, but there is obvs a worthy candidate in this article. Ceoil  (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to gripe further "made in Milan" is a fashion tv/branding type phrase, and usually we say "completed in", I think Ceoil  (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Portrait of a Musician now that I remember --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

“Only known male portrait”?
What about “Saint Jobn the Baptist”? Robin.lemstra (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to speculate and say that neither Saint John the Baptist (Leonardo) nor Saint Jerome in the Wilderness (Leonardo) qualify as portrait paintings. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, both St. Johns (the wilderness one has an extremely controversial attribution) are sacred art, not portrait paintings. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Placement of pre-restoration image
When I look at this article in Mobile view, the three images in the multiple image template in the "Identity of the sitter" section are split across two lines. Unfortunately, this means that the caption's references to "left", "middle" and "right" no longer make sense. Could I suggest pairing the first image, the pre-restoration photo, with Ambrogio de Predis's Portrait of a Lady in the "Attribution" section instead? To the right is an example of how it might look. This looks best on my laptop screen (in Desktop view) if it's placed between the first and second paragraphs of the "Attribution" section. Ham II (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure it makes sense to put the sheet music image in the attribution, since that factor concerns the subject more so than the attribution. You're more tech savvy than I, could something like If mobile be a solution for this? Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sforza is already discussed"
Where is it? I do not see any discussion, except that relating to the identification with Ludovico Sforza, clearly absurd since Ludovico was not like that. The identification with Galeazzo Sanseverino, son-in-law of the Moro and of Beatrice, their dear friend and beloved of the court, was proposed by Carla Glori as early as 2010, a prestigious Italian scholar who deposited her research at the Capodimonte Museum and others museum institutions. The site that I cited as a source, before the changes were removed, contains and explains precisely a part of his research, including the identifications with Galeazzo, which I personally support because I too have been studying the Sforza for years and I do not believe that, commissioning the portrait of someone, Ludovico would have had any musicians portrayed twice in place of his beloved Galeazzo. And I'm not exaggerating one iota, if you're interested just go and read his entry on Wikipedia, to see that Galeazzo was considered a second Duke of Milan, even before Ludovico became one. But, since we are on Wikipedia and my opinions do not matter, those of Carla Glori still count. I do not think that the simple addition of an identification, without detracting from the others, can be considered radical changes. I come from the Italian Wikipedia and this identification is present there for a long time, in addition to the fact that, as you will understand, having access to direct sources in Italian I can know the characters better than an English scholar who does not know ancient Italian.--Beaest (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I misread your edit, thinking you were referring to Gian Galeazzo Sforza, who is already there. Since this is a featured article, it needs high-quality reliable sources. Both sources you provided seemed to be from unpublished blogs, and from what I'm finding online, it is difficult to affirm the Carla Glori is a "prestigious" scholar—they have no WP article, for example, and I cannot see how they are qualified to speak on paintings by Leonardo. Aza24 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Here you can find some information about her, she teaches at the University of Turin: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carla-Glori

Here the research on the paintings depicting Galeazzo Sanseverino, both in section "La scritta in chiaro e la storia" and in section "Decifrazioni 2010/13".

Official site: https://www.carlaglori.com/mi-presento/

The fact that it doesn't have a Wikipedia page is not relevant in my opinion. Many other researchers and writers who never have and never will have their own personal page are used as sources. The other scholar I mentioned only because it confirms my impressions on the similarity of the features, I do not know him. I do not think that this identification with Galeazzo Sanseverino should be despised, given the prestige of the character, the resemblance with his father (and with his brother, although the miniature is not of great quality) and his connection with Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, as well as than with the Moor. The Sanseverinos generally had high and marked cheekbones, a square and protruding jaw, as well as large eyes. I cannot speak with certainty about the color of the hair, because it turns out that Roberto was brown, Gaspare reddish and Galeazzo blond, but the latter was sometimes dyed. Surely in the miniature of Ludovico il Moro's investiture, where it is possible to identify him with certainty, he shows himself to be light brown with blonde shades. Surely he has much more chances of being him than Franchinus Gaffurius or Josquin des Prez or Gaspar van Weerbeke, and without a shadow of a doubt it cannot be Gian Galeazzo Sforza, who had much more feminine features, was very blond and physically not imposing.--Beaest (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Beaest, firstly you must understand that we simply cannot consider much of your personal argument for inclusion, as it is essentially OR. If you could point to an actual publication that Glori has included this information in, it might be easier to consider including it in the article. Every Book source in this article right now is either by a) a famous Leonardo scholar or b) a well-regarded book on Leonardo—Glori seems to fit neither criteria. Surely you can see that the first source you provided is from "google sites" and the second is a word press blog, while the others in the article are by Oxford University Press and such. Also, please look closer at your additions to Galeazzo Sanseverino—which include numerous ref errors, incorrect formatting of page numbers and a duplicate bibliography. Aza24 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have translated the page as best I could, but I am waiting for someone else to come and correct the errors. Better still than it was before, which is that he didn't say anything. I have explained to you my personal opinions on this, to try to show you how the identification with Galeazzo is the most sensible, although it cannot be proven with certainty, at least until new sources emerge. I think that even on Wikipedia we need a bit of common sense: why should we leave absurd identifications on the page of the painting like the one with Gian Galeazzo, when it is clear that he could never be the man in the painting? Gian Galeazzo died at twenty-five, and only at twenty-four had he begun to shave his beard, he was practically a boy with developmental delays, he could never be the mature man in the painting, who at least looks between thirty and forty years old - the age of Galeazzo in fact, who in 1495 was thirty-seven. So if any scholar says nonsense, should it be reported on Wikipedia just because it is renowned? Then we must also include the identification with the Moor, which dates back to the nineteenth century, right? The truth is that historians have always badly digested Galeazzo's presence in Milanese events, and his strange relationship with Ludovico, which is why little has been said about him, hiding him under a convenient silence: if he had talked a little more about Sanseverino, there would have been no need to wait for the new millennium to notice the portraits that depict him (and I am not referring only to these two paintings). The same miniature of the investiture, where Galeazzo's identification is evident thanks to the remaining descriptions of the ceremony, has always been unspoken. Why? Because they cannot digest that Ludovico had put Galeazzo at the center of the scene, confining himself in a corner to the left and his wife at the bottom, as if Galeazzo were the real protagonist. Also show me where it says that secondary sources cannot be used, because this rule honestly escapes me, I have never read it in the guidelines. However this is the English version of the book, if you are interested in better understanding the identification: https://www.carlaglori.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-cartouche-of-the-Double-portrait-of-Luca-Pacioli-and-Pupil-The-Da-Vincis-enigma-decoded.pdf --Beaest (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ... You're continuous WP:OR is unhelpful. We work with what scholars say, and it is it not our job to weigh our opinions against them, it is telling that you have not even considered the fact that the person in the portrait is a musician, even though you seem to engage in this repetitive speculation. I am going to, who gave a thorough review of this article at FAC. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Now you're starting to make me nervous. You no longer have to allow yourself to undo my changes and remove the portrait from Galeazzo's page without consulting me, because the real problem here is that you can't read Italian or even use google translate. Before the problem was the blog, now what is it? You wanted the paper sources: I have cited two very valid sources: Luca Bealtrami is the architect who was responsible for restoring the castle of Milan in 1900. How bravely do you tell me that the sources are not valid? What do you want more? Could you also mention the German scholars who proposed the identifications? If you like it, I do. But if you cancel my change again without any justification, since I have now cited the sources, I will ask for the intervention of an administrator. I don't understand why Galeazzo's present bother you so much. And that he has a musical scroll in his hand is not relevant, because then I could tell you: both Galeazzo and Beatrice d'Este were very passionate about music, during a trip they sang more than twenty-five songs. It is not that all those who have scrolls in their hands are musicians, and it makes no sense to commission Leonardo (or one of his students) to portray a musician. Try to get over it.--Beaest (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, do me a favor, and stop bothering me, thanks. I don't have time for you bullshit. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Since it is useless to sing to the deaf, when you insist on denying the evidence, leave my changes alone without fuss.--Beaest (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your insertions now have the appropriate weight and inclusion in this article, I suggest you move on. Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)