Talk:Leonardo da Vinci
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Leonardo da Vinci is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. Leonardo da Vinci has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA Class: This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy,
a WikiProject related to the study of anatomy.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Leonardo da Vinci is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Leonardo da Vinci is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
Leonardo da Vinci is a featured article in the Bulgarian, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak and Albanian Wikipedias. 
Contents
[edit] Birthday date
Da Vinci's birth date is April 15th of 1452, but in Florentine Time (which started the 'new day' at sunset.) By our reckoning he was born on the evening of April 14th ('three hours into the night' according to the biography). Then we need to account for the difference between Julian Calendar (which was used at that time) and Gregorian Calendar which we use now. At 1452 the difference is 9 days, so this finally gives us April 23, 1452 as the birth data of Da Vinci that astrologers use - which is Taurus. http://holisticastrologer.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-is-leonardo-da-vinci-taurus-reader.html
Is this true? Anyone any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Mysterious people
The category is for people about whom there is a mystery as to their identity, immediate origins, or life. A cursory glance at the article suggests da Vinci's identity, origins or life story were not mysterious. Am I missing something? Because otherwise, the man should be removed from the category. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "Mysterious" category was added by Nfgii (talk · contribs), who added it to dozens of random bio pages. Most have been reverted, and he has been warned. This category is not any more appropriate for da Vinci than it is for any other random historical (or living) person. I reverted it. Before restoring, please provide a detailed rationale on this talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Argyropoulos one of his teachers
Leonardo Da Vinci, in his Atlantic Codex (saved in the Ambrosiana Biblioteca or Abrosian Library), describes some scholars and scientists among whom he lived and socialised including the most known Byzantine academic of his time “Giovanni Argyropulo†(John Argyropoulos). Modern History researchers assumed that he attended his lectures. Reference:
[edit] Hovercraft, not helicopter
i have looked at the "helicopter" he invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards. a helicopter uses the principle that air will always travel from a high pressure aria to low pressure area to fly. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re Leonardo questions
Please leave a message on my talk page, by clicking "talk" after my name. Amandajm (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] L or V?
Hello,
Why is this article ordered on L. Intuitively I would put it at V, but every other sources put it at L. Why? Yann (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because his name is Leonardo. Da Vinci means he came from Vinci. A considerable number of Italian artists are known to history by their first names, even when, like Michelangelo who was minor nobility, they had a well established surname. When Dan Brown named his book "The Da Vinci Code", he was displaying a considerable degree of ignorance, for one pretending to know a lot about the subject.
Raphael, the other giant of the High Renaissance is also commonly known by his first name. During their lifetimes, all the artists would have been called by their first names or nicknames, and this should be maintained in the articles about them, unlike articles about modern people which use surnames, so that for example, Andrea del Sarto can to be shortened to Andrea rather than del Sarto. On the other hand, some artists are known almost always by their surname such as Ghiberti and Brunelleschi, or place name, such as Perugino (from Perugia).
Among the artists who are known by nicknames are Uccello, Masaccio, Masolino and il Sodoma (don't ask)
A large number of the 14th century painters are usually known by two names such as Taddeo Gaddi, Bernardo Daddi or a name and place name like Barna di Siena. In the case of Piero, in the late 14thc, he was identified as the illegitimate child of his mother and made her name famous as Piero della Francesca.
With Leonardo, despite his illegitimacy, his birth and baptism were proudly recorded by his grandfather, and his father named him as his son. Otherwise he may well have been Leonardo della Caterina. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Religious (& Political) Views
Can somebody add with references a section on his religious views to the main article? Was he devout? was he skeptical? Like many at that time, did he pay lip service? Seems difficult to imagine that someone who's interests extended as widely as his did, didn't have views on the nature of religion and politics. --Dmg46664 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
About Leonardo's religious views: This is a matter that is almost entirely open to speculation. In his journals he occasionally made severe criticism of the church as an organisation, and in particular, monastic life. Other than that, he was silent. We know practically nothing about Leonardo's personal feelings on any subject.
Vasari indicates that Leonardo may have been sceptical about religious matters for most of his life, because he says that Leonardo, on his death bed, sent for a priest and learnt about the Christian faith. He was give the sacrament before his death. That is all we know.
Michelangelo, on the other hand, was a biblical scholar. It is my bbelief that the scheme for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is entirely Michelangelo's devising.
In the article on Leonardo, there is simply no room to go into speculative matters. The article is very long already. For that reason, there are three other articles: Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor, Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci and Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.
The place to include the various theories about his religious beliefs is on the latter page, along with the speculation about his sexually and so on.
Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nationality Tuscan?
Because Italy wasn't a nation at the time? And "Tuscany" was? This retroactivism is going to create some interesting situations. Goethe isn't German any more. Pericles isn't Greek. And as for Moses, well, he was born in Egypt, so I guess he's an Egyptian. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is totally ridiculous - he would have been regarded as Italian at the time, and should be now. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Sigh!) I'm perfectly happy to call him Italian. Is this a quorum then? Amandajm (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please! If you can find anything from the 15th century that uses the word Italy or Italian in anything but the broadest geographical sense, I'd love to see it. If Leonardo had an idea of Italian nationhood, it was almost as far ahead of reality as his flying machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please you! This has been discussed at three different places on this board. If you take the trouble to read all of them, you will find that the general concensus of major contributors to this page is that we feel that "Italian" is the best option. The discussions will also make it clear to you that we are none of us ignorant of whatever point you are trying to make. Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Pericles and Goethe are incomparable examples to Leonardo and the Italianata. The Italianata is a product of the 19th century, prior to that every "Italian" was loyal to their city and not to Italy. The best description would have been "Florentine" however per WP:POLICY we're obliged to use the most common descriptor, which is probably Italian. That's the only reason this name should be used, and not because the contributors feel in a certain way. Miskin (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Improvements
Sometimes this article talks too much of others and not of Leonardo himself. Does anyone have any suggestions for this? Particularly the section on his influences needs some improvement. Some of the statements are vague, and I think that more examples could be given. --152.3.239.4 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just replying to this.
The section on "Influences" is about Florence and the situation into which Leonardo moved, as a youth. It isn't about Leonardo's influence on others. It is this section, specifically, that talks about "others" and not Leonardo himself. To understand Leonardo, it is important to understand the artistic climate of Florence in the 1400s. Further down, there is a section dealing with Leonardo, Legend. The statements are direct quotations by authors over several centuries which show the esteem in which he was held, as his "legendary" status is unique among Renaissance artists. A sectionn dealing specifically with his influence on other painters would be a good addition.
- Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Equine statue
I've changed "equestrian statue" to "equine statue", because the planned Sforza monument was that of an unmounted horse. Pannonius (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leonardo's mother
There's an article in today's Guardian about new evidence supporting the claim that his mother was a slave, which in turn gives greater weight to the claim of Middle Eastern lineage. The latter part of the quoted text refers to the question of fingerprint reliability, whereas the Guardian article isn't focusing on that - perhaps it would be appropriate to add this to the quoted text to balance it out? G E Enn (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The new evidence seems to be pretty much the same as the evidence of 2001. I removed the line that said that there was doubt, I don't think it's necessary, as no-one has come forward with more proof to the contrary in 7 years.
- Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Leonardo's Arab heritage
Moved addition to first paragraph. The first paragraph attempts to briefly sum up his biography with known facts. It's not the right place to discuss whether something is "firmly proven". That is the sort of wording that goes in "talk page" discussions.
When Leonardo's origins are indeed "proven" then the first paragraph will simply state "the illegitimate son of Ser Piero.... and an Arabic slave, Caterina." It won't require the words "firmly proven".
The problem is this: it is not "firmly proven", even though it seems highly probable.
This topic is interesting, but we have no idea how it impacted on his major fields of creativity, or if it had any impact at all. There is so much info on Leonardo that we have four Wikipedia pages. The best place for an in-depth look at the question of Leonardo's family background is on the page Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.
Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The notebooks
The notebooks (which you call journals, but I think notebooks is the more commonly used term) deserve their own article. Some of the questions raised here could be treated at length - such as why he didn't publish them in his own lifetime (answer: apparently he intended to, but never got around to it), and the role of Melzi (faithful ammenuensis or blundering idiot?). This is a job for Super-Amanda!PiCo (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Do U Have Questions?
Is Leanrado Left handed?-angle
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.223.148 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes.
thats cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Who are all the Ranaissance people.((please make a list under)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.37 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Italian nationality
I don't quite understand based on what this article can claim that Leonardo's nationality was Italian. Stating that Leonardo was born in Italy might be correct even though the country Italy didn't exist at the time, since it's also a geographical turn. However, he most certainly wasn't an Italian national. Imposing contemporary nationalities on people who lived in other states is just plain falsification. If in the future Italy would be part of another country (let's say San Marino to emphasis the hypotetical question) would Leonardo then be of Sammarinese nationality? And if for some reason Italy would become part of the US 200 years from now, would Leonardo then be American? JdeJ (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't claim that L. was of Italian nationality; it says he was Italian. Italian by culture, by language, by geography (Italy did exist as a geographical expression at the time, to rephrase Bismark). PiCo (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I second that, but I'd like to argue that Leonardo's actual nationality is more important and more interesting a fact than the fact that he was Italian in the geocultural sense. Unless someone objects, I'll rephrase the opening paragraph to include his nationality, and I'll tentatively suggest not including Leonardo's Italian identity in the opening paragraph, to avoid confusion, or at least expressing that Italian is NOT his nationality (arguably, the above original post on Leonardo's nationality goes to show that currently there's a chance of confusion here). 213.243.165.105 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Furthermore, the infobox does claim that his nationality was Italian (as does the infobox of Leonardo's personal life article), which is plain untrue. 213.243.165.105 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Painting mistake
Unless I am mastaken, under the paintings section, the painting The Virgin Of the Rocks appears twice. could someone please correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.43 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a mistake. It is explained. They are two paintings in two different galleries. Amandajm (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Renaissance artists were fond of repeating their successes - you do a painting for client A, his good friend B sees it and asks for a copy, and so on and on. Works by Caravaggio are currently popping out of unexplored attics all over the place, all original, all nearly identical.PiCo (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Which Sangallo?
From the text (under "Florence—Leonardo's artistic and social background")
- Like the two contemporary architects, Bramante and Sangallo, Leonardo experimented with designs for centrally-planned churches, a number of which appear in his journals, as both plans and views, although none was ever realise
The link for "Sangallo" leads to a disambiguity page and it is not clear which Sangallo is meant: Giuliano da Sangallo (c. 1443 – 1516) or Antonio da Sangallo the Elder (c. 1453 – December 27, 1534); both were architects active during the Renaissance. Anrie 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. The latter is probably the more relevant.Amandajm (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Just reverted the lead image
The reason that the caption states that we do not know for sure if the drawing is a self-portrait is because that is the fact. It is also a fact that it is almost universally accepted as such. The oil painting dating from the 16th century may or may not be Leonardo, regardless of the fact that it has his name on it in large letters. If it is Leonardo, then it probably confirms that the drawing is also Leonardo. If the drawing is in fact Leonardo, then it is a superb drawing, by a greater master (the man himself) than the author of the painted portrait. Whichever way you look at it, the drawing is a better lead image than the painting. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leonardo's birthplace
because the page is rather crowded, I'm moving it to the Leonardo da Vinci's personal life pag. Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ease of accessibility
A clean list of his artworks would be easily accessed if it were more easily accessible. Nandor1 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PROPOSAL- split section List of paintings to List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci
My rationale for making this suggestion is as follows. Please add your comments.
Papa November (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. unless anyone vehemently objects. now the box has been well editted, this is a good way to go. Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Split completed. If anyone objects, we can easily restore the split content. Take a look at List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci - it needs a some work, including expansion of the lead section, and addition of the missing details in the latter sections, but it's reasonably complete otherwise. It would be nice if we could get it featured. Papa November (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
I have a suggestion: http://publicliterature.org/books/notebooks_of_leonardo_da_vinci/xaa.php
This offers the online text and PDF of the Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci.
76.100.228.241 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you look at the bottom of the article, there is already a link to Richter's translation.. Amandajm (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leonardo as a Pederast
Leonardo's most intimate relationships were perhaps with his pupils Salai and Melzi, Melzi writing that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. It has been claimed since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's presumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)
This was the previous version. Changed by Haiduc to the following:
Leonardo's most intimate relationships appear to have been with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Melzi wrote that Leonardo's feelings for him were both loving and passionate. According to Giulio Mancini, Da Vinci "made such carefully observed anatomical studies of the handsome young Signor Francesco Melzi." (REF Elizabeth Abbott, A history of celibacy: Experiments Through the Ages, p.34 END REF) Salai was also the model for an eroticized John the Baptist, and of him it was said at the time that he was kept by Leonardo as his Ganymede.(REF Robert Aldrich, Garry Wotherspoon, Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, p.265 END REF) It has been asserted since the 16th century that these relationships were of an erotic nature. Since then much has been written about Leonardo's assumed homosexuality and its role in his art, particularly in the androgyny and eroticism manifested in John the Baptist and Bacchus, and more explicitly in a number of drawings. (REF Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships epigraph, p. 148 & N120 p.298 END REF)
Haiduc asks me to explain why I deleted the info on the grounds that it was "speculation".
Whether or not Leonardo's relationships with Melzi and Salai were of an erotic nature appears to have been first speculated in writing by Giulio Mancini who was born 40 years after Leonardo's death. His work is a sexual fantasy.
As for Leonardo making detailed anatomical studies of a young man.... well what the heck does one expect an artist to do. As an artist, I have a stack of such "detailed anatomical studies" of young people both male and female with whom I have absolutely no erotic association whatsoever. Who was the contemporary who said that Salai was Leonardo's Ganemede?
Haiduc continually pushes a case for Leonardo being a pederast. The actual evidence for it is slight. If he ever drew or painted a boy who was younger than 18 years old, in any guise whatsoever, (except babyhood) then all the evidence has disapppeared. There remain a couple of erotic drawings of a Salai as a young man, but whether they reflect Leonardo's personal interest, or rather Salai's own sexual behaviour is uncertain.
Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- My only concern here is to try somehow to reduce the length of the article, and improve its style. The material about his social life is covered in detail in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, and it's not necessary here. However, I also think that there's a lot of very flowery description here, which can be made much more succinct. A lot of Vasari's descriptions seem more like fanciful fables about Leonardo than accurate historical accounts, and I'm not sure that they are entirely appropriate for the biography section. The "Leonardo the Legend" section would seem like a better place. Also, the amount of peripheral material dwarfs the account of Leonardo in many places - I agree that some context is necessary, but do we really need so much detail about work by other artists, the Italian Wars and Italian diplomacy to understand Leonardo fully? Per