User talk:Jodon1971/Archive 1

Leonardo da Vinci
I rolled back your statement that "Modern experts consider etc etc......." The reasons are as follows:
 * to be encyclopedic would require the direct quotation of a number of distinguished psychologist/educators etc.  Not just people who have written books saying he is a genius, but experts that  are so well known that their opinion matters.
 * if you read the hidden text, it should be clear to you that the very word "genius" has been challenged by nit-picking people who cite the Wikipedia MOS which states that "peacock words" are to be avoided. Note that the hidden text makes a careful and undeniable statement that the content is specifically about how Leonardo is generally regarded.
 * if you look further down the page, there is a whole section that is devoted to "Leonardo the legend" and deals with the matter of his fame, and the fact that he is regarded as a genius. A sentence such as the one that you included states the matter in too simplistic a way for it to be encyclopedic.
 * this article comes under intense scrutiny all the time. There are very few articles on Wikipedia that, like this one, draw interest from experts, students at every level of education from primary to university, and from the general public who have an enormous curiosity.  For this reason, every detail of the sections that mentioned words like "fame" and "genius" were rigorously attacked by the Wikipedia police who wanted them confiscated, and Leonardo reduced to just another painter, of no more fame or genius than say Giampietrino or Antonio Pollaiuolo.  I fought a lengthy battle to have reference to his fame and genius included at all.

Basically, it's best to leave well enough alone, than overstate a case in such a way that considerable more than you have added will be disputed and deleted.

Amandajm (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your edit and explanation. It seems unfortunate, almost incredible, even ludicrous, that some people want to reduce Leonardo to just "another painter". Numerous polls and "tests" have been conducted that have unanimously concluded Leonardo as being not one of, but THE greatest genius who ever lived. Apparently, as you say, these sources are not authoritative enough to warrant justification for inclusion in an encyclopedia such as WP. I had assumed (in my ignorance) that experts such as Tony Buzan and Raymond Keane who paintsakingly researched 100's of geniuses throughout history, would be considered authoritative. Is it worth pursuing the "psychologists/educators" you mention for their assessment and include them as reliable sources? I didn't use Martin Kemp who is an English Professor and a Leonardo scholar because there wasn't a direct quote from him making that claim. If he made such a claim, would it be challenged? Can you tell me if these people's opinions have already been sought on this matter? I would consider this a rather important dispute to settle. Should everyone on the planet not know who was the greatest genius who ever lived (whether or not it was Leonardo)?

When you rolled back you also removed the internal wikipedia links I created for the fields/subjects immediately following "polymath". May I put these back? Thanks again for your message. Jodon1971 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I think that a whole section on this subject ought to be developed and added to the article Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.
 * Basically, what we have here is opinions and theories. If someone is of the opinion that he had the highest IQ of all time, regardless of how much research they did or high highly rated their opinion might be, it remains a theory.
 * The main article Leonardo da Vinci is already long and could contain a great deal more biographical fact and information about his painting than it does. For this reason, theories and speculations are given very little space in the article.  However, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life has room for a lot more speculation and already contains a section discussing opinions relating to his sexuality.
 * If you were to right a section about his apparent IQ, then you could discuss it at some length, adding quotations and more detailed sources e.g. "In 2002 Joe Bloggs of Yea University made an analysis of blah and concluded blah blah blah. This is supported by further analysis by Smith and Brown". etc
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I also realise you have put a great deal of work into the article and, as such, consider it your "baby" so to speak. I am wary of making any further contributions for the following reason: in my limited experience of Wikipedia I have often felt that I have to climb Mount Everest in order to have (what I consider) a simple edit "approved". You have corroborated this yourself when you mentioned you have "fought a lengthy battle" just to get him recognized as a genius. I find that editors' penchant to cite Wikipedia policy often interfers with their ability to address a point I'm making, and therefore restricts the potential for a better article, to say nothing about providing valuable information. They end up making a mountain (Everest) out of a molehill (simple edit). Some people thrive on that, and they become successful wikipedia editors. I find it intolerable, and so perhaps wikipedia editing is not for me.


 * However, if this issue is not closed, and someone else wants to pursue it, my suggestion is that this question of his genius has nothing to do his "personal" life. What I was trying to get across was that there is a "public perception" of his genius which has nothing to do with his personal or private life. These experts I mentioned established certain criteria and examined a multitude of perceived geniuses throughout history, and after having evaluated each and every person's achievements and influence, Leonardo achieved a higher score in their ranking system than anybody else. My suggestion is to include mention of this in the main article either under the existing section of "Fame and Reputation", or create a new section called "Public Perception of Leonardo's Genius". Jodon1971 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, having read your description of the analysis etc, I think it would fit into the last section, as a penultimate paragraph, beginning with the 20th or 21st century date, and a statement to the effect that this study was done.
 * The very fact of the study fits into the whole notion of "Leonardo worship". A new section on the public perception of his genius would be too much altogether.  His IQ is just one of the matters about which people are curious.
 * The final paragraph can stay intact as a summary to the rest of the section.
 * Would you write it?
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to write it, Amandajm, but since you asked so nicely I'll consider it, and get back to you at a later date. Thanks again for an open discussion. Regards. Jodon1971 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've written a first effort re: our discussion in my Sandbox. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to look it over and give me your opinion on it. Please bear in mind that it is unfinished e.g. I need to add a quote from a book, and also cite more than one source, which I am currently investigating. But at least you can let me know if I am on the right track, Wiki-wise or otherwise. Thanks. Jodon1971 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Buzan's Book of Genius, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Ochiwar (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Leonardo
I think that what you have written is good of itself. I haven't checked it against the article.

I would change the crucial word in the first sentence from "popularity" to "fame".

I'm also dubious about expressions like "help to" in describing what Clark and Kent did/do. I think they have certainly both "tried to", to some extent. Also, when writing about them in the same sentence as Vasari, it would be better to refer to them as "writers" rather than university lecturers.

Amandajm (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Having just taken a look at the article, I think it's all too much!  The matter of Leonardo's fame is going to seriously overbalance everything else in the article.
 * The article already has a link to Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci but that is not necessarily the right place to put it.
 * I was working on an article previously which I considered valid, but another user, who has admin status I suppose, deleted it, saying that everything could be contained within the existent article. At that point, the article was still a string of headings, but as you can see, it was going to be lengthy.
 * I think that I will trot out the article again, under a different name.
 * I will begin it by removing the bulk of the section in Leonardo da Vinci that deals with his fame.
 * You work can then slot straight into the new article.
 * The article can be accessed at User:Amandajm/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation
 * It could be renamed Leonardo da Vinci, fame and theory or something similar.
 * I'm working on something else right now, but would really like to get that article going again.
 * There are people on Wikipedia who fail to comprehend that some individuals outstrip all others in fame, and warrant articles of this type. Marilyn Monroe stands alone among screen goddesses, and Shakespeare among writers.


 * Amandajm (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Back again. The main article on Leonardo avoids speculation, simply because there is so much about which to speculate.  There is simply a statement that says that such speculation exists.
 * If a section speculating on Leonardo IQ and including stuff like 21st century polls to see what the "man-in-the-street' thinks about his IQ, goes into the article, then we also need to include all the speculation about his sexuality, about his racial background, about his religion etc etc etc.
 * It's all theory, not facts. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the man.
 * The options as to where to put the info are three:   User:Amandajm/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life or Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you've got me wrong! I am not suggesting that all the other stuff must go in the section on Fame.
 * What I am telling you is that if you introduce to the section on fame (or any other section in the main article) a long paragraph on speculative studies about his IQ,
 * Then what follows is:
 * all the speculation about his mother being Arabic and the studies of his fingerprints must be put into the Early life section in the Main article
 * all the speculation and studies about his sexuality, homosexuality and suspected pederasty (which has been speculated and written about at length) must be returned to the section on his relationships, pupils etc. in the Main article
 * all the speculation that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait, a portrait of his mother, a portrait of Salai etc etc etc, will then have a place in the section on his works in the Main article
 * all the speculation about the Last Supper, about his religious beliefs, about his potential heresy etc etc etc will be able to be fed into the section of the article that deals with the "Last Supper" in the Main article.

All this stuff, which is 'purely speculative will bulk out every other section of the article so that it becomes impossible to find the facts for the speculation.

Any notion about Leonardo's IQ fits into the box of speculation regardless of how systematic the study. Put that speculation onto the article and you open the flood-gates to all the other stuff. What you have to realise is that all this other speculation is just as important to someone as the speculation over his IQ is to the people who have done this study. Speculating about his intelligence is not more valid than speculating about his parentage, beliefs, sexuality etc.

And one of the end results will be that no-one in the whole of South East Asia, rural Australia, most of Africa, China and South America will be able to download the article, because it will drop out, before the servers have processed it. The reason why there are several separate articles is to combat these sorts of problems.

Let me put it to you that the speculation as to his IQ (in modern terms) is a great deal less interesting to many people (including me) than the theories relating to him being a Jew, a Humanist, an Atheist, or even (God help us) a Protestant. The reason why this is so fascinating is that having some knowledge of this would aid in the interpretation of his works. Notice that none of the possibilities here include anything extreme like "Head of the Priory of Sion" (or whatever it's called.

So, basically, there are really good reasons why I asked you not to add the speculation to the main article. There are three other options.

Amandajm (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste

This is what I wrote to you on 18th January:


 * Thanks for your response! I think that a whole section on this subject ought to be developed and added to the article Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.
 * Basically, what we have here is opinions and theories. If someone is of the opinion that he had the highest IQ of all time, regardless of how much research they did or high highly rated their opinion might be, it remains a theory.
 * The main article Leonardo da Vinci is already long and could contain a great deal more biographical fact and information about his painting than it does. For this reason, theories and speculations are given very little space in the article. However, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life has room for a lot more speculation and already contains a section discussing opinions relating to his sexuality.
 * If you were to right a section about his apparent IQ, then you could discuss it at some length, adding quotations and more detailed sources e.g. "In 2002 Joe Bloggs of Yea University made an analysis of blah and concluded blah blah blah. This is supported by further analysis by Smith and Brown". etc
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, it is speculation and it goes with other speculation


 * Now, why would an art historian be so curious to know what Leonardo da Vinci's religious beliefs were?
 * Because in 15th century Italy (and even more so in 16th century Italy) everyone was expected to have Roman Catholic beliefs, and Roman Catholic practices. Jews could survive, but heretical Christians could not.  A Christian whose beliefs were not precisely in line with what they were supposed to be could be burned at the stake.
 * When Leonardo wrote statements about fossils that indicated that he doubted that they were put in the rocks by the "Great Flood" described in the Bible, then he put himself in very real physical danger, because his beliefs were not what the Catholic Church thought they ought to be.


 * Leonardo painted religious pictures with Christian themes because if he wanted to paint at all, he had to paint the sort of pictures that people would buy. People bought small religious pictures and churches and monasteries bought large religious pictures that were generally paid for by a wealthy donor who wanted the monks to pray for his soul. This is the reason that several of Leonardo's early pictures are small Madonna and Child pictures.  And why his big commissions were The Adoration of the Magi, The Madonna of the Rocks and The Last Supper.  One of his earliest known pictures is an Annunciation.

But
 * there were rules for painting an Annunciation, about how the Virgin Mary should react. Leonardo's picture breaks the rules.
 * Leonardo's little Madonna and Child pictures are composed differently to the established ways that those pictures were composed.
 * His painting of The Last Supper breaks all the rules of iconography of that subject. Why isn't Jesus blessing the cup or the breaking bread?  You must understand that in the religious climate of that time, showing Jesus not doing what he was supposed to be doing at the Last Supper was not just unusual.  It was not just a design choice.  It was an absolutely radical break from what the Catholic Church expected.  And anything that challenged to tradition of the Catholic Church was a dangerous thing to do.
 * As for the Virgin of the Rocks, it ran the risk of being considered very, very heretical.

So what we are looking at here is not simply an artist who painted some very special, beautiful famous pictures, but an artist whose works 'challenge all the most accepted ideas of his day, in a manner that was dangerous.

No-one would be so fool as to knowingly walk such a fine line, when there were easy options that would also have led to beautiful paintings.

So the question remains, what were Leonardo's religious beliefs, that caused him to paint in such an eccentric and possibly dangerous manner, not once, but in most of his religious paintings? This is of far greater importance to me, as an art historian, then speculating about whether he had the highest IQ, measured by today's standards. Knowing his IQ will not aid me in the interpretation of his artworks; not the tiniest jot! But knowing that he was in fact a Jew or a member of the heretical Christian sect of Cathars would aid my insight into some of the greatest and most profoundly challenging artworks that have ever been created.


 * Sexuality.
 * This matter may not interest you, but all the gay men out there who see the John the Baptist as an iconic piece of art are curious to know the background behind it.
 * Knowing about the sexuality of a painter can give you insight into the paintings themselves.
 * For example: Caravaggio produced a sequence of paintings that are blatantly homo-erotic. These were done at a particular place and time in his life.  Since he was a relatively unknown painter until recently, this prompted speculation, in an attempt to understand the subject matter.  In this case, the solution appears to be that all the paintings of this type were commissioned from the artist by a particular patron who wanted paintings of that nature.  And since the artist was on-the-run from the law, he couldn't be too choosy about his patrons. Insight into the artist's life explains the choice of subject.
 * In the same way, people are curious to know why Leonardo painted that John picture. Perhaps it was for a gay client.

Speed. Many areas of the world have limited internet. Big files fail before they are fully downloaded. An article as big as Leonardo da Vinci may only load the text with no pictures. School children in many parts of the world, rural Philippines for example, are lucky if they have access to a ten-year old computer that lumbers along and is really only useful for word-processing and playing minesweeper. They are lucky if they have a telephone line connected to the school, let alone an internet service. Since the article Leonardo da Vinci is used by school kids all over the world, it is best not to make it bigger than necessary. Speculation about his IQ can go in one of the three other articles.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't got much time now, because I'm fixing something that I really don't want to be doing!
 * Re Leonardo's notebooks, I can only say that I have dipped into them from time to time, and have an idea as to their scope.  I have never studied them in great detail.
 * I'm more familiar with his works on anatomy than mechanics, though I am interested in both. I've spent time both at Vinci and at Clos Luce looking at models made from his drawings and discussing the mechanics of them.
 * Yes, I'm an artist. I draw, mainly, but also paint, sculpt and print. One of my interests in anatomy is the reconstruction of facial features from skulls.  Unfortunately, one doesn't have many skulls to work with.
 * On the mechanical side, it's merely an interest. I worked for some years at a museum where I wrote educational programs about all sorts of things, everything from lace-making to steam engines. I am definitely the only person that I know who can make a piece of bobbin lace, on one hand, and calculate the mechanical advantage of a rotative steam engine on the other, but not necessarily simultaneously.
 * I'd better finish this blinking thing!
 * Amandajm (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything's fine, except that it has taken hours and hours on the phone to Mumbai to get a decent internet connection.. I've got a new modem so I hope it helps!  Amandajm (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audiometry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Measure and Hear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)