![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not an art person, can anyone who is comment on this ? JoshuaZ 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
i have a question- i don't believe the "magi" can be a companion piece to "venus" since it was painted years earlier. can this be checked and fixed in the caption to the painting? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.81.89.128 (
talk) 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I was going to edit the page outright, but I wanted to give the Wiki people a heads up that Botticelli did not die so much in obscurity, as there are records that prove that he did work beyond what the article states. I just think it's too vague and needs to be revised.
Thanks people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.65.60 ( talk) 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
I've added some bio and paintings info, moved 'religion', and removed the warning tag for expansion, though the article could use more content on life and works. JNW 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I miss a great work of Botticelli: The Chart of Hell (drawing in Divine Comedy).
You can find more information about it via The European Library. For instance, it is the 11th treasure on http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/VaticanCity/treasures_en.xml
What shall I do? Should I link to it, create a page or mention it somewhere else, e.g. possibly wiki on Divine Comedy?
Thanks, Fleurstigter 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states that "The masterworks Primavera (c. 1478) and The Birth of Venus (c. 1485) were both painted for the villa of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici at Castello". This is not actually true. Inventories published by Shearman have shown that the Primavera was actually painted for the town house of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de'Medici in Via Larga Florence and that it was moved to/hung in Castello at a later date. The same inventories also suggest that the Birth of Venus was not actually a Medici commission at all but was originally painted for someone, somewhere else - the painting, like the Primavera, was however, hanging in Castello by the time of the inventory of 1499. 137.205.251.1 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind revising this information in the article itself, especially if you can cite the source of scholarship? Thanks, JNW 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Found a link with the scholarship you referred to. JNW 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two of these, one dated c. 1490 (Munich) and one dated c. 1495 (Milan). The links in the article are reversed, and should be corrected. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so have no idea how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danby16 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, July 4, 2007
Thanks--done. A little cut and paste. JNW 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a need for both a fairly exhaustive list of works, and an equally comprehensive template as well? Even one, in full extent, is more than enough here. JNW 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph `Less than a hundred years later, this movement, under the patronage of Lorenzo de' Medici, was characterized by Giorgio Vasari as a "golden age"' is not clear. The upshot is that Vasari said that less than 100 years later than the time of Lorenzo de' medici; can anyone find a better wording for the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.156.70 ( talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In the aritcle it says the date of his birth including the year/s '1444/45'. What does this mean? Which year was he born in? Could someone clarify this soon please unless it is not a mistake in which case please explain. I'm going to change it to 1445 as that is what it seems to be according to other sources. If there is a reason not change it please inform me of it. Heytaytay99 ( talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The external link is dead, for your information
well according to the NGA (National Gallery of Art) the correct date is 1446 - 1510
reference: http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg7/gg7-30.0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.115.153 ( talk) 03:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in the article to suggest why the marker "gay, lesbian, or bisexual' has been added to Botticelli's article?
I bugged Bearcat about this, politely, and we had this exchange:
It's likely that the source came from the charge found in the Florentine Archives by Mesner in the 1930s. I've clarified the detail in the article, but haven't restored the LGBT category tag. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So Sandy's not gay any more. -- Wetman 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article does not mention the Mystical Nativity, yet it is one of Botticelli's most famous works. Why, eh, why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.71 ( talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Just watched a TV programme saying the PRB were very influenced by Botticelli, and this link at http://www.theearthlyparadise.com/2008/09/botticelli-and-pre-raphaelites.html seems to bear it out: but this article says they "ignored" him. Who's right? RLamb ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
after seeing it ( the mystic nativity) in London he referred to Botticelli's 'mystic symbolism' and the adjective stuck' (Private Life of a Christmas Masterpiece, BBC, December 2009)..I think the ' they ignored Botticelli' bit should go. Sayerslle ( talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the paragraph that begins "The popular view is..." Is that the part Contaldo80 is referring to? I don't have the Lightbown in front of me, but this info, which is certainly all over the internet, doesn't seem to be substantiated anywhere, least of all here. All of the supposed "Simonettas" date to after her death. I visited Ognissanti this summer & it seemed to me that Botticelli's grave is not in fact near the Vespucci chapel. Do we give the unrequited love thing credence or is it a romantic myth? Albiart ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've re-included the text on Botticelli's private life. I was not convinced that this information is too obscure for conclusion - unless someone can demonstrate thus. It is covered in several sources, which have been cited. I accept it is not a big issue when considering Botticelli and his work, but therefore the length of the text is accordingly proportionate. Nor am I convinced that Lightbrown should be regarded as the major source to determine inclusion - he is an art specialist (albeit with an excellent pedigree) but that does not mean that he is a reliable biographer or historian. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Other wikipedies say the date Botticelli born was in March 1. The sources are spanish, italian and french's wikipedia. Moreover in the page March 1 on the Birth was the note of Botticelli. And in the page of 1445 also is write the day March 1. What is the reason whose date wasn't write on this page? -- 83.53.215.109 ( talk) 16:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I was confused by the Early Life section. The sentence "[Botticelli] became an apprentice when he was about fourteen years old, which would indicate that he received a fuller education than the other Renaissance artists" seems incorrect to me. I know off the top of my head that Da Vinci was apprenticed at a young age, and that Michelangelo was educated by the de Medici family from a young age. Does anyone have a citation for this sentence? I kinda think it should be deleted, but I wanted to see if anyone else had any other opinions. DeCombray ( talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the understandable confusion is due to the words "fuller education". As written, it's not clear if that means a more diverse and thorough education outside of painting or a more comprehensive training within his chosen specialization. HIs late start in apprenticeship is noteworthy, yet the second clause of the sentence would benefit from clarification. A citation would be helpful as well. Ctconnolly ( talk) 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm a big fan of Botticelli, and also a big fan of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which, as you might know, is out of copyright and therefore free for us to use in creating Wikipedia articles. It's quite comprehensive and well written. Here is its entry on Botticelli, for example:
scans: http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri04chisrich#page/306/mode/2up
text: http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri04chisrich/encyclopaediabri04chisrich_djvu.txt
I think we should replace the current Wikipedia article on Botticelli with the text from the Encyclopedia Britannica entry. What do you think of this idea?
Don Quixote de la Mancha ( talk) 02:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I am against the idea of replacing the current Wikipedia article with the Botticelli article in the 1911 EB. If there are claims made in the EB article that anyone feels are worthy of entry into the Wikipedia article then their inclusion may be considered by the Wikipedia community. Even reading the first few sentences of the EB article raises concerns for me. Should Botticelli's father be described as a "struggling tanner"? What is the evidence for this claim? When I read Ronald Lightbown's 1989 monograph on Botticelli (Sandro Botticelli: Life and Work), I don't recall him conveying the idea that Botticelli's father was struggling professionally in the sense of not doing at all well or failing in his profession. The author of the EB article disagrees with Vasari over the source of Botticelli's name, but provides no citation to support his claim. In fact, the EB article has no citations at all, just a bibliography. That style of encyclopedic scholarship is antithetical to the citation standards of Wikipedia. Even as I type this I am reading the sentence that is an essential part of the article and editing guidelines for Wikipedia: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The only way to verify every individual claim made in the 1911 EB article would be to read every text in its bibliography while diligently taking notes. Then there would be the need to also examine the sources of these sources with healthy scholarly minds. Then contradictory and contrasting scholarship would need to be taken into consideration. Once that is accomplished I would prefer that citations be made directly and specifically from EB's bibliographic sources and not from the 1911 EB article. Ctconnolly ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, some time ago I have added an image and referenced text about painter's technique. It was removed by Hafspajen with a note picture doesn't add to article and replaced by another gallery - [4]. Does it really? - Vert33 ( talk) 14:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me what a private life is? It's a term reminiscent of the 1950s. Naughty stuff happens in one's "private life" - we don't talk about what goes on behind closed doors etc! I have rarely come across a more childish piece of editing. Let's be more mature about how we deal with the subject of sex shall we. It's pretty pathetic (and somewhat sad) - bordering on a personal attack - to say that to me "just because you are only interested in sex, doesn't mean that everyone is". The paragraph deals with Boticelli's sexuality - mainly his homosexuality. There is record of a public charge in the Florentine Archives for goodness sake! How is this private? I have avoided an edit war but I am advising other editors that unless they set out clearly why the term "private life" is better and why "sexuality" will not do then the current state of the article will be reverted. I am not going to allow articles to be a prurient extension of someone's personal hang-ups. Contaldo80 ( talk) 13:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality. The sexual preferences or activities of a person should usually not be mentioned in the article lead unless it is related to the notability of the person.Mduvekot ( talk) 21:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So who was the homophobe, "prudish and old-fashioned", author of the "childish piece of editing", "as if we're contributing to a Victorian sex manual", "prurient extension of someone's personal hang-ups" which introduced "Private life" as a section header? Why, it was Contaldo80, back in 2008! Johnbod ( talk) 22:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of having a heading called "Finances and Family" if it's about his property and who it leaves this to? Unless you want to imply that "family" is a heterosexual norm and the other stuff around sexuality is of a separate class (ie sexuality and family can't go together by their nature)? Also is the statement about sodomy in Florence specifically linked to Botticelli - what does the original source say? Otherwise you're pushing SYNTHESIS. eg Botticelli was accused of sodomy. Many people in Florence were impugned by being accused of sodomy. Therefore Botticelli wasn't really guilty of sodomy, just a smear campaign. Let's try harder shall we Johnbod. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The reasons that the material on Botticelli's "boy angels" has been removed (of course Contaldo has reverted) is that it is a howler made by Hudson, a specialist in African music who has developed an interest in art in middle age, but has no training in art history. If he had he would know that in Catholic theology angels are always genderless (as they don't breed), and are also always shown in art as beautiful, as spiritual creatures directly created by God. There is tons of material on this, which you can easily find. 15th-century angels by any artist always look " androgynous" because they all are, if you want to use that terminology. It is only much later, especially in the 19th century, that angels may be shown with gendered bodies, as religious belief declines and the theology is ignored. His remarks don't help understanding of the subject (very much the opposite), and he is not an RS on this topic. Some newspaper reviewers of exhibitions are very good, others just burble, or misunderstand the press release. The catalogue of the V&A exhibition might well throw up something of interest to you, but I'm sure you won't find it talking about "boy" and "girl" angels. The coverage I saw suggested, rightly I think, that Botticelli's female figures were the main influence on 19th and 20th century art - they are certainly the iconic ones. Johnbod ( talk) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The article says [used to say? not now] that Botticelli had given up painting in accordance to the preachings of Savonarola. Another biography, [6], suggests otherwise. Can anyone clear this up?
Hi guys, I removed a dubious uncited passage from the lede. The passage also has other faults: not in main text and not notable enough for lede. I gave detailed factual descriptions in the edit summaries. The removal was replaced in violation of
WP:burden with non-reasons such as "phooey" as well as a faked assertion that there was a citation when there was not.
Please provide a reliable secondary source when replacing a passage removed for being dubious and uncited. When making edit summaries, please address the issue at hand (instead of the subjective "I don't like it") and try to characterize your edit accurately.
Another way to address the matter(s) is to attempt to fix the cited problems. For example, you can simply move mention of such a "golden age" to the main text (as long as a supporting citation is included there at the same time). That would leave remaining only the subjective question of whether it's pertinent enough to the subject for summarization in the lede. It would eliminate the main problem of being uncited/dubious as well as the problem of not being mentioned in the main text. Such a fix wouldn't even need to be very good because it would also signal cooperation, which people are usually much more happy about reciprocating.
67.248.17.85 (
talk) 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Modernist, that's a very excellent secondary source you added there. I see our text is an exact quote of the source. Since we're supposed to paraphrase sources instead of word-for-word, I'll modify our phrasing to accommodate. I'll also move it to the main text where it's more apt and needs to meet a lesser standard for being on topic. From there, if parts of it can be justified as notable enough for mention in the lede, then they can be summarized in the lede as well (still to figure that out). 67.248.17.85 ( talk) 02:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not an art person, can anyone who is comment on this ? JoshuaZ 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
i have a question- i don't believe the "magi" can be a companion piece to "venus" since it was painted years earlier. can this be checked and fixed in the caption to the painting? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.81.89.128 (
talk) 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I was going to edit the page outright, but I wanted to give the Wiki people a heads up that Botticelli did not die so much in obscurity, as there are records that prove that he did work beyond what the article states. I just think it's too vague and needs to be revised.
Thanks people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.65.60 ( talk) 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
I've added some bio and paintings info, moved 'religion', and removed the warning tag for expansion, though the article could use more content on life and works. JNW 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I miss a great work of Botticelli: The Chart of Hell (drawing in Divine Comedy).
You can find more information about it via The European Library. For instance, it is the 11th treasure on http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/VaticanCity/treasures_en.xml
What shall I do? Should I link to it, create a page or mention it somewhere else, e.g. possibly wiki on Divine Comedy?
Thanks, Fleurstigter 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states that "The masterworks Primavera (c. 1478) and The Birth of Venus (c. 1485) were both painted for the villa of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici at Castello". This is not actually true. Inventories published by Shearman have shown that the Primavera was actually painted for the town house of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de'Medici in Via Larga Florence and that it was moved to/hung in Castello at a later date. The same inventories also suggest that the Birth of Venus was not actually a Medici commission at all but was originally painted for someone, somewhere else - the painting, like the Primavera, was however, hanging in Castello by the time of the inventory of 1499. 137.205.251.1 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind revising this information in the article itself, especially if you can cite the source of scholarship? Thanks, JNW 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Found a link with the scholarship you referred to. JNW 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two of these, one dated c. 1490 (Munich) and one dated c. 1495 (Milan). The links in the article are reversed, and should be corrected. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so have no idea how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danby16 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, July 4, 2007
Thanks--done. A little cut and paste. JNW 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a need for both a fairly exhaustive list of works, and an equally comprehensive template as well? Even one, in full extent, is more than enough here. JNW 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph `Less than a hundred years later, this movement, under the patronage of Lorenzo de' Medici, was characterized by Giorgio Vasari as a "golden age"' is not clear. The upshot is that Vasari said that less than 100 years later than the time of Lorenzo de' medici; can anyone find a better wording for the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.156.70 ( talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In the aritcle it says the date of his birth including the year/s '1444/45'. What does this mean? Which year was he born in? Could someone clarify this soon please unless it is not a mistake in which case please explain. I'm going to change it to 1445 as that is what it seems to be according to other sources. If there is a reason not change it please inform me of it. Heytaytay99 ( talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The external link is dead, for your information
well according to the NGA (National Gallery of Art) the correct date is 1446 - 1510
reference: http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg7/gg7-30.0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.115.153 ( talk) 03:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in the article to suggest why the marker "gay, lesbian, or bisexual' has been added to Botticelli's article?
I bugged Bearcat about this, politely, and we had this exchange:
It's likely that the source came from the charge found in the Florentine Archives by Mesner in the 1930s. I've clarified the detail in the article, but haven't restored the LGBT category tag. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So Sandy's not gay any more. -- Wetman 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article does not mention the Mystical Nativity, yet it is one of Botticelli's most famous works. Why, eh, why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.71 ( talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Just watched a TV programme saying the PRB were very influenced by Botticelli, and this link at http://www.theearthlyparadise.com/2008/09/botticelli-and-pre-raphaelites.html seems to bear it out: but this article says they "ignored" him. Who's right? RLamb ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
after seeing it ( the mystic nativity) in London he referred to Botticelli's 'mystic symbolism' and the adjective stuck' (Private Life of a Christmas Masterpiece, BBC, December 2009)..I think the ' they ignored Botticelli' bit should go. Sayerslle ( talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the paragraph that begins "The popular view is..." Is that the part Contaldo80 is referring to? I don't have the Lightbown in front of me, but this info, which is certainly all over the internet, doesn't seem to be substantiated anywhere, least of all here. All of the supposed "Simonettas" date to after her death. I visited Ognissanti this summer & it seemed to me that Botticelli's grave is not in fact near the Vespucci chapel. Do we give the unrequited love thing credence or is it a romantic myth? Albiart ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've re-included the text on Botticelli's private life. I was not convinced that this information is too obscure for conclusion - unless someone can demonstrate thus. It is covered in several sources, which have been cited. I accept it is not a big issue when considering Botticelli and his work, but therefore the length of the text is accordingly proportionate. Nor am I convinced that Lightbrown should be regarded as the major source to determine inclusion - he is an art specialist (albeit with an excellent pedigree) but that does not mean that he is a reliable biographer or historian. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Other wikipedies say the date Botticelli born was in March 1. The sources are spanish, italian and french's wikipedia. Moreover in the page March 1 on the Birth was the note of Botticelli. And in the page of 1445 also is write the day March 1. What is the reason whose date wasn't write on this page? -- 83.53.215.109 ( talk) 16:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I was confused by the Early Life section. The sentence "[Botticelli] became an apprentice when he was about fourteen years old, which would indicate that he received a fuller education than the other Renaissance artists" seems incorrect to me. I know off the top of my head that Da Vinci was apprenticed at a young age, and that Michelangelo was educated by the de Medici family from a young age. Does anyone have a citation for this sentence? I kinda think it should be deleted, but I wanted to see if anyone else had any other opinions. DeCombray ( talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the understandable confusion is due to the words "fuller education". As written, it's not clear if that means a more diverse and thorough education outside of painting or a more comprehensive training within his chosen specialization. HIs late start in apprenticeship is noteworthy, yet the second clause of the sentence would benefit from clarification. A citation would be helpful as well. Ctconnolly ( talk) 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm a big fan of Botticelli, and also a big fan of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which, as you might know, is out of copyright and therefore free for us to use in creating Wikipedia articles. It's quite comprehensive and well written. Here is its entry on Botticelli, for example:
scans: http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri04chisrich#page/306/mode/2up
text: http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri04chisrich/encyclopaediabri04chisrich_djvu.txt
I think we should replace the current Wikipedia article on Botticelli with the text from the Encyclopedia Britannica entry. What do you think of this idea?
Don Quixote de la Mancha ( talk) 02:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I am against the idea of replacing the current Wikipedia article with the Botticelli article in the 1911 EB. If there are claims made in the EB article that anyone feels are worthy of entry into the Wikipedia article then their inclusion may be considered by the Wikipedia community. Even reading the first few sentences of the EB article raises concerns for me. Should Botticelli's father be described as a "struggling tanner"? What is the evidence for this claim? When I read Ronald Lightbown's 1989 monograph on Botticelli (Sandro Botticelli: Life and Work), I don't recall him conveying the idea that Botticelli's father was struggling professionally in the sense of not doing at all well or failing in his profession. The author of the EB article disagrees with Vasari over the source of Botticelli's name, but provides no citation to support his claim. In fact, the EB article has no citations at all, just a bibliography. That style of encyclopedic scholarship is antithetical to the citation standards of Wikipedia. Even as I type this I am reading the sentence that is an essential part of the article and editing guidelines for Wikipedia: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The only way to verify every individual claim made in the 1911 EB article would be to read every text in its bibliography while diligently taking notes. Then there would be the need to also examine the sources of these sources with healthy scholarly minds. Then contradictory and contrasting scholarship would need to be taken into consideration. Once that is accomplished I would prefer that citations be made directly and specifically from EB's bibliographic sources and not from the 1911 EB article. Ctconnolly ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, some time ago I have added an image and referenced text about painter's technique. It was removed by Hafspajen with a note picture doesn't add to article and replaced by another gallery - [4]. Does it really? - Vert33 ( talk) 14:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me what a private life is? It's a term reminiscent of the 1950s. Naughty stuff happens in one's "private life" - we don't talk about what goes on behind closed doors etc! I have rarely come across a more childish piece of editing. Let's be more mature about how we deal with the subject of sex shall we. It's pretty pathetic (and somewhat sad) - bordering on a personal attack - to say that to me "just because you are only interested in sex, doesn't mean that everyone is". The paragraph deals with Boticelli's sexuality - mainly his homosexuality. There is record of a public charge in the Florentine Archives for goodness sake! How is this private? I have avoided an edit war but I am advising other editors that unless they set out clearly why the term "private life" is better and why "sexuality" will not do then the current state of the article will be reverted. I am not going to allow articles to be a prurient extension of someone's personal hang-ups. Contaldo80 ( talk) 13:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality. The sexual preferences or activities of a person should usually not be mentioned in the article lead unless it is related to the notability of the person.Mduvekot ( talk) 21:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So who was the homophobe, "prudish and old-fashioned", author of the "childish piece of editing", "as if we're contributing to a Victorian sex manual", "prurient extension of someone's personal hang-ups" which introduced "Private life" as a section header? Why, it was Contaldo80, back in 2008! Johnbod ( talk) 22:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of having a heading called "Finances and Family" if it's about his property and who it leaves this to? Unless you want to imply that "family" is a heterosexual norm and the other stuff around sexuality is of a separate class (ie sexuality and family can't go together by their nature)? Also is the statement about sodomy in Florence specifically linked to Botticelli - what does the original source say? Otherwise you're pushing SYNTHESIS. eg Botticelli was accused of sodomy. Many people in Florence were impugned by being accused of sodomy. Therefore Botticelli wasn't really guilty of sodomy, just a smear campaign. Let's try harder shall we Johnbod. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The reasons that the material on Botticelli's "boy angels" has been removed (of course Contaldo has reverted) is that it is a howler made by Hudson, a specialist in African music who has developed an interest in art in middle age, but has no training in art history. If he had he would know that in Catholic theology angels are always genderless (as they don't breed), and are also always shown in art as beautiful, as spiritual creatures directly created by God. There is tons of material on this, which you can easily find. 15th-century angels by any artist always look " androgynous" because they all are, if you want to use that terminology. It is only much later, especially in the 19th century, that angels may be shown with gendered bodies, as religious belief declines and the theology is ignored. His remarks don't help understanding of the subject (very much the opposite), and he is not an RS on this topic. Some newspaper reviewers of exhibitions are very good, others just burble, or misunderstand the press release. The catalogue of the V&A exhibition might well throw up something of interest to you, but I'm sure you won't find it talking about "boy" and "girl" angels. The coverage I saw suggested, rightly I think, that Botticelli's female figures were the main influence on 19th and 20th century art - they are certainly the iconic ones. Johnbod ( talk) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The article says [used to say? not now] that Botticelli had given up painting in accordance to the preachings of Savonarola. Another biography, [6], suggests otherwise. Can anyone clear this up?
Hi guys, I removed a dubious uncited passage from the lede. The passage also has other faults: not in main text and not notable enough for lede. I gave detailed factual descriptions in the edit summaries. The removal was replaced in violation of
WP:burden with non-reasons such as "phooey" as well as a faked assertion that there was a citation when there was not.
Please provide a reliable secondary source when replacing a passage removed for being dubious and uncited. When making edit summaries, please address the issue at hand (instead of the subjective "I don't like it") and try to characterize your edit accurately.
Another way to address the matter(s) is to attempt to fix the cited problems. For example, you can simply move mention of such a "golden age" to the main text (as long as a supporting citation is included there at the same time). That would leave remaining only the subjective question of whether it's pertinent enough to the subject for summarization in the lede. It would eliminate the main problem of being uncited/dubious as well as the problem of not being mentioned in the main text. Such a fix wouldn't even need to be very good because it would also signal cooperation, which people are usually much more happy about reciprocating.
67.248.17.85 (
talk) 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Modernist, that's a very excellent secondary source you added there. I see our text is an exact quote of the source. Since we're supposed to paraphrase sources instead of word-for-word, I'll modify our phrasing to accommodate. I'll also move it to the main text where it's more apt and needs to meet a lesser standard for being on topic. From there, if parts of it can be justified as notable enough for mention in the lede, then they can be summarized in the lede as well (still to figure that out). 67.248.17.85 ( talk) 02:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)