Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:59, 15 August 2008

Visual arts Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Dispute tag added

At least one of the editors for this article has an established Misplaced Pages history of adding unsubstantiated rumors of pederasty to biographies and then passing them off as "fact" (the editor apparently has made it his Misplaced Pages mission to insert the topic of pederasty to Misplaced Pages articles of all kinds). This link pretty much puts the lie to much of the article's current "information". This article should probably be nominated for deletion, as its sources are extremely suspect. J.R. Hercules 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for lowering the discourse to the level of "The People's Almanac." And for the personal compliments, of course. If you could bring some more serious materials to the discussion perhaps we could include them into the article. I will not speculate on your own motives, it should be clear why. Haiduc 06:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to concur with user J.R. Hercules. I have pointed out that Haiduc added the Pederasty labels to Francesco Melzi. The evidence for this is based a line of text. I can assure you that if you look at the letters of Giuseppe Maria Crespi to his patron in Florence, and others trying to ingratiate themselves with patrons in that time, you would see the flourishes of words which Melzi addressed to Leonardo. There is no, I repeat, no evidence that Leonardo and Melzi had a pederastic relationship. This is not worth discussing. I happen to believe that there is contemporary evidence that Leonardo was accused of homosexuality as a young man. If someone feels this is of value to state with regards to Salaino, and can work out the difference in age, so be it. I doubt there is any conclusive dating to when the relationship between Salaino and Leonardo became carnal, thus I wouldn't jump to the notion that it was pederasty.

I vote this article for deletion. I strongly insist that the statements of pederasty be excised from the text of the entry for Leonardo. CARAVAGGISTI 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanging blinking paragraph, again!

I really hate it when someone deletes a paragrph or sentence and leaves the dependent sentence with nothing to refer to.

If you are going to remove the quotation from Leonardo concerning procreation then please remove the statement of Freud's opinion that is based on that quotation otherwise the latter makes no sense

This type of sloppy editting really annoys me!

What would be a really good and helpful idea would be if the person looks for the source instead of just deleting a quotation from the man himself and replacing it with an opinion.

The author's opinion is a valid one to quote. But it is not top line intro stuff.

--Amandajm 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Can't do that!!

I have just discovered that a large amount of info re Salai and Melzi has been lifted directly from .

That is really not on! Thinking it was written by a wiki editor, I've chopped it about a bit, without realise it was someone's non-wiki work!

O damn! it's gunna hafta be entirely rewritten! Need coffee! --Amandajm 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK!

Having looked back through the history of Leonardo da Vinci I have concluded that the Coppens at is quoting Wiki rather than the other way around, which is legitimate.

--Amandajm 09:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Novel

Your structuring of interpretations of his love life seems to have little to do with either history or Leonardo. What led you to set it up that way? Haiduc 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your rearrangement is an improvement.

--Amandajm 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambidexterity?

While this finding is a traditional one, recent scholarship raises questions. In any event, this alone suggests material for a more thorough investigation of the matter. JNW 08:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the traditional designation is primarily that of southpaw. JNW 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting reports in Misplaced Pages - to whom did Leonardo give or sell the Mona Lisa?

In http://en.wikipedia.org/Leonardo_da_Vinci%27s_personal_life#Salaino it is reported that Leonardo bequeathed the Mona Lisa to il Salaino, his servant and companion, who listed the painting in his own will. However in http://en.wikipedia.org/Mona_Lisa#Artist_and_early_history it is reported that King Francois I bought the painting for 4,000 ecus.

Both can't be right, and I don't know which is. Anyone able to provide a definite reference?

Dermod (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The association with Salai is recent

"Aside from the riddle of the smile, it's the mystery of Mona Lisa's identity that has inspired amateur art detectives all over the world. After centuries of uncertainty, a vitally important document has recently come to light in the Milan State Archive. It's a probate document listing the possessions of Leonardo's life-long companion, Salai, "the little devil", who was murdered in 1525. It includes a painting valued at 505 lire, which was a small fortune in those days. So it must have been a masterpiece, almost certainly left to Salai by Leonardo himself.

It's called La Gioconda, which means "the smiling one", but it's also a pun on the married name of a Florentine woman called Lisa Gherardini. She was the third wife of a prosperous silk merchant, Francesco del Gioconda, and they almost certainly met Leonardo through their patronage of Santa Annunziata, the local Servite monastery."

This article unfortunately does not name the person who did the detective work and made the discovery. An English art historian searched through a great many documents and then found Salai's will, and found the listing of a portrait value at an uncommonly high amount. Then she observed a jotting in the margin saying that the painting was of Mona or Donna (can't remember which but it was Mrs or Lady) Gioconda. This is the first time that it has been confirmed that her name actually was Madam Gioconda, even though the Italians have always referred to her as "La Gioconda" (the joking one). It's typical of Leonardo thhat in painting her he played with her nname by giving her a smile, very unusual in the painitng of the day. I saw the woman who made the discovery interviewed in a documentary. I think that she is the "Rona Goffen, professor of art history at Ruttgers University" referred to in the article, but not actually creditted with the discovery. The article was written by Nick Rossiter, who made the TV show.

And really, the woman who made the discovery was so humble about it that she never said "I did this and I did that..." She spoke all the time in the second person. What she said was something like "There you are, in the library spending days and days pouring through old documents in the hope that you might get a clue. And suddenly, there it is, right before your eyes.... " She was just so elated that her rather earnest studious spectacled face looked just about as radiant as the Mona Lisa herself.

Telegraph UK, Arts Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty and Francesco Melzi

The issue rears its ugly head again. Unless someone has proof of a sexual relationship between Leonardo and Melzi, I would revert the paragraph to the way it was before Haiduc's modification. There is no such proof of a physical relationship between Leonardo and Melzi, although it remains plausible. I thought it had been resolved before, in February of 2007.CARAVAGGISTI (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re edits by Maloseri

I have just looked at your edits to (this) 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.

Do not change the word "relationship" to "friendship" because "relationship" is a very broad term in English, while the word "friendship" is more specific.

Please don't keep fiddle with these articles! It is a fact that the possibility of a sexual relationship between Leonardo and Salai has often been discussed.

It is completely inappropriate to delete sourced material.

Amandajm (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Amandajm. The material being deleted is well-sourced, and is the result of a history of discussion between editors. Broad reversions won't stick, especially if they are made without discussion, and are without explanation in the edit summary. JNW (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I think the changes in question were extremely poor for the following reasons: First, they cite Leonardo's works themselves as evidence. (The article practically makes the argument "Look! Leonardo painted nekkid pictures of boys! HE MUST HAVE WANTED TO HAVE HAD SEX WITH THEM.") This is original research in the extreme, in addition to being simply ignorant of the themes that permeated Renaissance art and showing a willingness to impose 21st century know-nothing sexual attitudes on a 15th century man. Second, where citations are made, they prefer less-scholarly, "single-issue" sources to more accepted da Vinci biographers (glbtq.com and Crompton. Crompton, at least, is a well-known scholar, but his work needs to be used in the context of the dog not barking: that is, of other major biographers without a political agenda not making such sweeping claims about da Vinci's sexuality.) In short, these additions egregiously violate several of Misplaced Pages's core philosophies: they are written to persuade and argue a point of view, that point of view is not supported by mainstream sources, and in places that point of view is presented as an entirely novel argument developed by Misplaced Pages editors. This in unacceptable, and this sort of nonsense must stop. Nandesuka (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your disqualification of gay history experts as valid sources has been noted, and will be the subject of analysis. Haiduc (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm! One of Leonardo's pictures of the nekkid boy shows him with a rather formidable erection. It does seem to hint at a certain sexual interest. Amandajm (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you drop by Model (art) and make that argument? I'm sure everyone who has ever sketched a man with an erection in an art class will be fascinated to know that this means they have sexual interest in their models. Nandesuka (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits

I don't think that this "minority opinion" thing will wash. It goes against the facts.

• Fact Leonardo was arrested for sexual activity with a young male prostitute. That he was arrested is one of the very few undisputed dated biographical facts that we have for that part of his life. Not to state this would be remiss.
• Fact In the 16th century, Leonardo was characterised in literature as enjoying sex with a 15 year old boy. While the book itself is fantasy, it reveals how Leonardo was depicted by someone whose life overlapped those who knew him.
• Fact There are few erotic drawings still in existence by Leonardo. The few which are blatantly erotic are also of an unquestionably homoerotic nature. Penises chasing somebody's bottom?
• Fact Many authors comment upon the sexually-charge nature, or apparent androgeny of the John the Baptist figure.

Concerning the nature of Leonardo's sexuality- Two other opinions have been offered, with citation. Anyone who knows more about Freud's interpretation, (or any other interpretation) of Leonardo's sexuality is perfectly welcome to add it. This would redress the balance in a much more effective and meaningful way than removing that part which has been researched and written.

There are other gaps in this article which also need fixing. My recommendation is for someone to do a little more research and writing, instead of getting quite so uptight about what is already written. There is more than one way to balance a see-saw.

Amandajm (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandeska, your last argument is ridiculous. Go take a look at the drawing that is being referred to.

Moreover, I have worked as an art teacher and have drawn a large number of nude men in the last 50 years or so. And, to be perfectly frank, I have never seen a young male model with a full erection in a classroom situation. The only man that has ever got a full erection while I was drawing him was one who was planning on getting me into bed as soon as I had finished the drawing. ..... I find your attitude odd! Amandajm (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I just looked at the reference to erections in the article to which you are referring- the case of an inexperienced young male model... What usually happens when a model starts to get an erection is that the young man simply says "Excuse me, I need a break" and goes to the bathroom in his wrap.

The situation in which Leonardo drew Salai is entirely different. Leonardo also drew anatomic studies of genitals, and of copulation. These drawings are in no way "erotic' drawings. They are scientific studies. There is no confusion at all about which of the pictures are erotic. Amandajm (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources supporting your fascinating contention that artists only draw models with erections because they want to have sex with them, that might very well support your point. It may seem obvious to you that Leonardo's pictures of Salai were (a) erotic and (b) that this nature implies that Leonardo drew them because he had an erotic relationship. But your opinion (or, indeed, any of our opinions) is not a permissible source for this encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, you have seriously and deliberately misinterpreted what I have said.

• I made no such "fascinating contention" (your words). I have commented specifically on the Misplaced Pages page (Model (art)) that you have cited as reference for your comment about art students depicting males with erections.
• I have informed you, from experience, that it would be a most uncommon thing for art students to draw a live model in a studio situation with a full erection. The article you cited supports what I have told you. On the other hand, the penis of some males tends to engorge slightly while they are posing naked. This is not the same thing as a full erection.
• I have not contended that artists only draw models with erections because they want to have sex with them. However, if an artist draws a model with a full erection, then it is much more likely to be done as an act expressing personal intimacy, or as a piece of erotica, or as a piece of pornography, or as a piece of humour or satire than in a studio situation. Because of the nature of erections, their depiction is almost always directly associated with sex in one of these ways. That must be quite obvious, surely!
• No statement has been made that Leonardo was homosexual/pederast. The statement has been made that these interpretations of his character have existed since his lifetime.
• An explanation has also been included in the article that, during the Renaissance period, homosexuality was commonly expressed as pederasty. The modern situation of two adult males living openly as a couple was not a social possiblity. However, an artist engaging in a sexual relationship with a teenage apprentice was a social possibility because apprentices lived in the Master's household for several years. The relationship might be long term, if the apprentice continued as the master's assistant, once out of indentures. Procuring a boy on the street for sexual purposes was illegal, and was policed.
• If we consider historic interpretations of Leonardo's sexuallity-

1. There is no evidence that, during his lifetime, his contemporaries interpreted him as sexually repressed, as Freud later did.
2. There is no evidence that, during his lifetime, his contemporaries interpreted him as heterosexual, as several authors who have linked him to "Mona Lisa" have later done.
3. There is finite evidence that, during his lifetime, he was interpreted as having had sex with a young male. This interpretation of his sexuality has not been proved true or false, but the fact is that the interpretation has existed since the man was in his early 20s. And the fact is that recent writers have cited a number of artworks to support the interpretation of his character. These facts are reported in this article.

• The facts that have been cited do not support a minority opinion. They support an informed opinion, which is a different matter entirely. The widely imagined popular opinion that Leonardo might have been in love with the Mona Lisa is a view based on ignorance of the facts, rather than knowledge of the facts. The majority of people who hold this opinion do not know that Leonardo was arrested for sodomy and have never seen Leonardo's drawings of penises chasing Salai's bottom. There are millions of people all over the world who are interested in Leonardo as a sort of cult figure and have opinions about him, just as they have opinions about Princess Di and Mahatma Ghandi. It doesn't mean that they know anything in any depth.

Nandesuka, I am bound to ask you why you are challenging only the part of the article which deals with Leonardo's sexuality. These are the best referenced parts of the entire article. There are whole sections in the article that have no reference whatsoever, and some of them may indeed fall into the POV category. Why have you not gone through and slapped "fact" tags on all the other uncited material? Why this obsession with supressing opinions concerning the man that have been held since he was arrested in the 1470s?

Amandajm (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind your asking at all. Recently, I noticed a spate of activity on varied and sundry biographies with much material being added asserting or speculating that those figures were homosexuals or pederasts. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with noting such discussion in a biography. The problem, however, is that when I followed up on the sources, in a distressingly large number of cases the claims were misinterpreted, mischaracterized or, to be blunt, completely fabricated, often involving cherry-picking of sources (by which I mean extensively quoting sources that supported the contention that Figure A was a pederast, and discounting any contradictory sources) and plain misreading (citing Source A as supporting the statement "Figure A was a homosexual" when Source A, in fact, said "We can not conclude that Figure A was a homosexual". As a result, I am simply inclined to require a much higher standard of proof about claims like this going forward. That means verifiable citations to impeccable sources, and it means a very careful and very balanced choice of words. I don't see that in the material you're reverting back into the article.

I have no particular subject matter interest in the homosexuality of historical figures. I'm just trying to clean up the absolutely despicable damage that has been done to the encyclopedia by a few dedicated POV warriors, who seem to have a standard as low as "if you can get a hit on a google search that asserts Fact A, that's good enough for a Misplaced Pages article!" It isn't. It never has been. It never will be.

Haiduc has implied that I'm trying to "disqualify gay history experts." Not at all. I'm trying to disqualify the misuse of them in a shotgun manner to provide indiscriminate support for ridiculous statements. (A good example of this happened recently on the Byron article, where an editor was misusing sources to assert, indisputably, that Byron had a sexual relationship with so-and-so, where in fact there is no such academic consensus that he did. Of course I'm not trying to extinguish discussion of Byron's homosexuality and pederasty -- he was Lord Freaking Byron, for crying out loud. I am, rather, demanding impeccable sources and impeccable use of sources, rather than copy-and-paste-to-support-a-point of view, which -- I'm sorry -- is how this material reads to me.

I hope that clarifies my interest. Nandesuka (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the continuing and partial, selective deletion of Vasari's description (a graceful and beautiful youth with fine curly hair, in which Leonardo greatly delighted.)? Unless there is reason to doubt the veracity of the full quote, its truncation looks like spin. Some of the deleted passages appear to be well sourced and cited; other statements would benefit from further sourcing. In short, is the literature certain about Leonardo's sexuality? If it remains speculative, then Misplaced Pages must reflect that. And if there is substantial scholarship supporting the interpretation that he was homosexual, then reversions of such content ought to be undertaken judiciously. JNW (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have explained your selective interest in removing different statements, but that does not explain your purposeful misinterpretation of things that I have written on this page. And since the writer, in this case is right here asking you to explain yourself, I think that it is a little biased, to say the least, for you to accuse other people of the misuse of facts and sources. At the risk of seeming unpleasant, I must state that I don't like to be misrepresented.Amandajm (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. You said: "One of Leonardo's pictures of the nekkid boy shows him with a rather formidable erection. It does seem to hint at a certain sexual interest." I don't think that it does hint at that, particularly since if we infer that hint, we're making a twenty-first century inference about a renaissance mind. And certainly I don't think such hints are a reasonable basis for making claims in an article in Misplaced Pages. Nandesuka (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

JNW, I think the article makes it clear that these matters are specualtive. Will you just check it over? Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In reponse to the last by Nandesuka.

Your misinterpretion of what I wrote didn't concern that. You accused me of making a "fascinating contention". Please reread what I have written on that matter, and try to revise your thinking.

Concerning your last point, erect male organs have always been associated with sex. Ever since God put that funny little thingy on Adam. (See Michelangelo). This association is not a modern interpretation. If it were, I can't imagine what would have happened to the human race!

Are you trying to tell me that people are mistaken in thinking that the picture known as "Incarnate angel" (translates as "Angel in the flesh") isn't about sex? Its just a perfectly innocent lad, drawn by a perfectly innocent Renaissance man as an anatomical study! ;-) Amandajm (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that supports your interpretation of this image? - brenneman 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've looked over this article and its parent article and I suggest that this be merged back to Leonardo da Vinci. There are curretnly two paragraphs there, and the material that is currently here could easily be summarised to at most three paragraphs, particularly if extraneous material is removed.
brenneman 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aaron! Please, please please do not suggest a re-merge of the two Leonardo articles!

Firstly, the main article is very long and I am being hassled to shorten it.

When I first commenced work on the main article, it included a lengthy passage on the topic of Leonardo's speculated pederasty, and not much else. There was no discussion of his paintings whatsoever. One of my concerns was that there was extreme overload on the sexual side (about which we in fact know almost nothing).

The article is used by every English-speaking child on the planet with access to a computer, in order to do their school assignment on Leonardo. (They all do one, sooner or later). Although I am not by nature prudish, the emphasis on the pederast side of things, and the discussion of pics of Salia's bottom was out of hand. Censorship is not permitted on Misplaced Pages, but on the other hand, a balance of opinions is expected. Since balancing the opinions was so difficult, I split the article, and encouraged people to write about other matters as well, including lefthandedness, love of nature, vegetarianism and so on.

I want to see the two articles kept separate. So I would prefer that you didn't recommmend a merge.

Amandajm (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about there being inappropiate weight placed on any one aspect, and in particular your comments about "determined editor capable of finding a lot of quotes." However, to fix the problem in the parent article by moving it here is almost the definition of content forking.

By having this article here is gets less attention, which makes it more difficult to ensure proper encyclopedic content. Unless there is signifigant objection, I'll be re-merging any material that's appropiate and redirecting this article.

brenneman

• Strong Keep This amounts to a proposal to delete about 7/8s of this article:"material that is currently here could easily be summarised to at most three paragraphs, particularly if extraneous material is removed" - which seems bizarre. The main Leonardo article is already near the maximum desirable length, and would certainly go over it if this were merged back, not to mention the "Science and inventions" "content fork", to which exactly the same arguments would apply. The article meets the Misplaced Pages:Content forking guideline perfectly well:

  Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Misplaced Pages:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you don't seem to have found any agreement that this article should be merged.

• The fact is that every single aspect of Leonardo's life is interesting to the punters in one way or another. For that reason, if all that is known or specualate is to be written about the fascinating character, then a number of articles is required to cover it.
• The Parent article is already extremely long. For that reason it has been divided. There is a separate article on Leonardo as a scientist. and article on cultural depictions of Leonardo, in line with other such articles, and this present article, which contains much interesting info, and would be much longer if the proposed sections were finished.
• Because of the present length of the parent article, it is slow to load, and as the main editor of it, I am being urged to split it once again. There is really no need for you to make it any longer.

Amandajm (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Let's upack just one section, to compare what's there in this article vs what's in that article. There is mention above of problems with material related to "the topic of Leonardo's speculated pederasty" so that's probably a natural first examination:

• The current parent article has, under Leonardo_da_Vinci#Personal_life has two paragraphs covering this, roughly 1000 characters.
• Under Leonardo_da_Vinci's_personal_life#Leonardo.27s_sexual_orientation this article has four paragraphs, roughly 1700 characters. But 600 of those are a single quoted hunk of text, another 170 are another quote, and the 263 characters in the "intro" to this section are straightforward POV empty/peacock, "some have speculated on the possibility of an erotic element." Who are "some" and to what degree have they speculated?

Soooo that leaves 1700 - 870 - 260 < 1000. The section here is actually shorter in terms or real encyclopedic content than that section in the parent article.
brenneman 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to a merge in principle, provided that the following conditions are met:

• The Leonardo da Vinci article does not increase in length at all
• No valuable encyclopedic content is lost.

If you think this is possible, why not draft a version of it here, so we can take a look? Papa November (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Amandajm and Johnbod. Although in principle I like neither spin-off articles nor excessive trivia, this is an exceptional case. There is content here that is not without interest, elaborates on material in the main article, but is too specific for inclusion there and would result in unwanted expansion. It is possible that some of this information could be folded into footnotes in the main article, but that would be extremely unwieldy, too. Given the subject's fame and import, a separate article has merit. JNW (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • In response to the statement that the artcile has less info on the topic of his specualted perderasty, this situation is the immediate result of recent deletions by one editor. I have reverted the edits several times, but need to just make sure that everything is properly referenced before reverting again, as per discussion. Amandajm (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• What, no Haiduc? Poor chap must be unwell. I'll go with a KEEP on this article, and delete the personal relationships sectionette from the main article. Entirely. It's trivia. It's does-the-poet-pick-his-nose - a phrase from a letter of Lawrence Durrell, dear Amanda, who was writing to his friend Henry to complain about exactly this kind of popular preoccupation with salacious details. But since Misplaced Pages is the vox populi, it's gotta go somewhere, and it might as well go here. (And anyway, who am I kidding - I enjoy reading salacious titbits as much as the snooty highbrow intellectual). PiCo (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A message from "my talk" by Amandajm:

"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)"

First, way to show your true colors. It's now clear the real reason you want that stuff in. Second, this has got to be the flimsiest argument for anything I've seen in a while. Keep baseless speculation in an encyclopedia to "prevent" even more baseless speculation? First speculation of any kind has no place in encyclopedias and how does prevent more speculation? If anything it encourages it as acceptable.

Apart from that I agree with the decision to merge and delete because this contains a lot of non-essentials. Remove all the feathery display and all you get left is a very skinny naked chicken. The crucial details can easily be put into the main article in a couple short paragraphs. ---Maloseri (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep It is interesting to see what ammunition those who would like to eliminate this information from Misplaced Pages are using. "Fringe" and "speculative" are good examples. But we see that the "deleters" use the "fringe" label for homosexual history and queer studies works, and that the use of "speculative" is itself speculation, and not by authorities in the field (such as wrote the contested and properly cited material) but by anonymous internet characters with a louche agenda posing as defenders of intellectual integrity. Then of course there is the demand for "impeccable references" selectively applied, of course, to the topics that exercise the said characters, and enforced by capricious standards imposed by them by fiat, as if they knew what they were talking about. The net result, of course is "it goes because I say so." This is a particularly pernicious process when these individuals work in cahoots with each other, and even more so when they work under the cover of administrator credentials, which have been amply abused by both of these fellows. Nandesuka I have caught in two barefaced lies on important matters. Brenneman has a history of being verbally abusive and threatening, which he then follows by less-than-credible apologies. Watch out for both of them. Haiduc (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and cleanup. I absolutely appreciate Amandajm's angst about flooding the argument with ludicrous speculation, and I'm not trying to ruin his life. However, the key to the conundrum lies in his initial observation: this article only exists because the material in it was ruining the main article. I don't think we have to settle for sloppy scholarship, and I think the correct solution is to merge the verifiable', non-fringe' arguments back into the main article, and to toss the Mary Sue style speculation where it belongs: on the midden heap. Nandesuka (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph I deleted

I deleted this:

" had a great tenderness for the mystery of birth. As a Renaissance pagan he is nympholept, ravished by a vision of immortal beauty; like any mediæval monk and schoolman he is charmed by the mystical vision of virginity. He hates the act of procreation, but he loves the child. As an artist he solved his problem by a dream of parthenogenesis, or by bridal with a god, which, while remote and miraculous, yet casually admitted to the imagination the haunting sensuousness that could not be entirely laid, in a subtle and etherealized and perhaps perverted way that pleased him."ref: Annand Taylor, Rachel, Leonardo the Florentine: A Study in Personality, pp.493, Richards Press, 1927.

What does it mean? A "tenderness for the mystery of birth"? A nympho-what? "Ravished by a vision of immortal beauty" (pure gush). "Charmed by the mystical vision of virginity" - meaning he painted some Virgins? - but he was paid to. And what on earth does "bridal with a god" mean? And it seems he "casually" (as opposed to purposefully?) imagined (how do you casually imagine something?) a "sensuousness" that was somehow "subtle," "etherealised," and "perhaps perverted" (thank God for the "perhaps"!). If I'm just too thick to understand this etherialised prose, please explain it to me, but I strongly suspect that the author is trying to cover up half-formed thoughts with exalted language. (Sorry Amanda dear, but one must be cruel to be kind - Rachel seems to me to be talking through her fundament).PiCo (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you imply by your apology that it was me who was responsible for finding and including this extraordinary waffle! I merely transferred it from the other page, along with with Freud and .... I've forgotten the name of the other guy who made the lewd specualtions.... Anyway, it weren't me wot dunnit and don't you dare imply it was! Amandajm (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell: Is this friendly banter betwixt the two of you? - brenneman 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles