User talk:Maloseri

welcome, please!

Leonardo's personal life
Maloseri, I notice that you have been removing stuff from that article. So I'll explain myself.

When I started editting the main article on Leonardo da Vinci, there was a very strong emphasis on his relationship with his two pupils, backed up by numerous references etc etc. The same article had nothing about his paintings. When I editted out some details of his private life, and placed much greater emphasis on his works, there was uproar from an individual who claimed I was censoring an article and supressing the true nature of the man.

The row went on and on with numerous outraged people joining the fray on either side. Like the private life of James VI/I, it threatened to swamp the other aspects of the man, and overtake the entire page, let alone the discussion page. So I began the article on his private life, in the hopes that all the speculations about his sexuality would argue themselves out on that page, not on the main page that all the little kiddiwinks use to do their homework.

For this reason, it's best not to delete the stuff, even if it appears speculative. Because for every action there is an opposite reaction, and in the case of your deletion, the reaction may be far greater than equal. Frankly, I don't care how much they speculate about his private life, as long as it is made clear that it is speculation. I just want to avoid a great pile of speculative shit on the main page, and for that reason, I'm prepared to compromise. Amandajm (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your actions do not match your words above. Besides speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. It is very poor reasoning to say we should keep in the speculation to prevent even more speculation. The only person reacting to me taking out speculation is you who are putting it back in.

Maloseri
The Leonardo article has been relatively stable for a long time. This indicates that the majority of editors who are interested in it are satisfied with it.

As I have pointed out to you above, the subject of Leonardo's relationships is a fairly delicate one that has brought about a great deal oof discussion and argument. This had calmed down.

With regards to your edits, they have been reversed because:


 * "Companion" is a term used for a young person or servant who travels with and assists an older person. Melzi was Leonardo's "companion" in his old age. This is correct English. It means something different to "close friend". It does not mean "homosexual partner".
 * The beauty of Salai is not a digression. It is almost certainly the reason why Leonardo took the urchin home. He painted those ringlets on his angels.
 * The later description links to the drawings. Salai's face appears many times, but is not always labelled as Salai.
 * You deleted the reference to several of Leonardo's pictures. That was not appropriate.
 * You deleted a citation to a written source. That was not appropriate either.

Amandajm (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just looked at your edits to the other website. Changing the word "relationship" to "friendship" is completely inappropriate. Leonardo had a "relationship" with the boy Salai. It was a "master/pupil" relationship. This much is certain. It may have been a "father/son" relationship. It may have been a pederast relationship. But one thing is absolutely certain. It was not a "friendship" in any normal sense of the word "friendship" which implies an equal and giving relationship.
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge SPAM
I've stated at LDV's personal life talk that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear content fork. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page. brenneman 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)