Talk:Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci

message: At least one of the editors for this article has an established Wikipedia history of adding unsubstantiated rumors of pederasty to biographies and then passing them off as "fact" (the editor apparently has made it his Wikipedia mission to insert the topic of pederasty to Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hanging blinking paragraph, again! 

message: I have just discovered that a large amount of info re Salai and Melzi has been lifted directly from . 
O damn! it's gunna hafta be entirely rewritten! Need coffee! 
--Amandajm 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't do that!!

message: 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)
thread_title: OK!

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, your rearrangement is an improvement. 
--Amandajm 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novel

message: 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)
thread_title: Ambidexterity?

message: 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)
thread_title: Pederasty and Francesco Melzi

message: I deleted this:
"[Leonardo] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I can't tell: Is this friendly banter betwixt the two of you? - brenneman 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I's friendly banter - I know Amanda in real life. :). PiCo (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's right! Mutually beneficial bad prose is it now?! :b Amandajm (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph I deleted 

message: Checking with reference (8) it is seen that [the only]ExplorerMMVIII (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please expand and improve the article in whatever way you can. There might be a nice Leo drawing of an animal that would fit in appropriately at that point. ... had a look, there's only the bear. I wonder if the poor thing was a dancing bear? Amandajm (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and Additions to Leonardo's Vegetarianism 

message: Leonardo da Vinci is awsome!!! I guess  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.20.29 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo da Vinci 

message: I am really annoyed about this one. It's a little hard to give benefit of the doubt to some editors. 
An editor uploaded to Commons a pic that came from a blog about Leonardo's suspected/presumed homosexuality. The pic of was the Incarnate Angel, which I have just deleted. My reason for deletion is this: 
*The blog from which the wiki editor took it states clearly that the picture is called the Incarnate Angel and is believed to date from about 1515. (It's similarity to the John the Baptist, believed to date from Leonardo's last years, is apparent to anyone/everyone who looks at it.) 
*The blog mentions Jacopo Saltarelli... not a name of great importance. He was the young male prostitute with whom Leonardo was accused of having relations. 
*The enterprising editor who uploaded the picture has uploaded it as "Leonardo da Vinci - Jacopo Saltarelli" and stated in the description that it is Jacopo Saltarelli by Leonardo da Vinci and dated it 1475, forty years before it is believed to have been drawn. 
* So now it has been put into this page by a nameless editor, as a picture of Jacopo. 
* Moreover, a page has now been created called Jacopo Saltarelli, just so that this pic can be displayed, and a whole article devoted to a young man about which we know absolutely nothing, except that he was allegedly a prostitute. 
This is getting beyond a joke. I left a message on the original uploader's talk page requesting that the picture be uploaded again under the name of "Incarnate Angel" and its date corrected from 1475 to 1515. 
Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I too thought it was Salai. It is a very important work for this article, please restore it properly labeled. Haiduc (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of pic

message: There are people out there that contend that he was straight-  in love with Mona Lisa, etc etc .  It probably ought to be mentioned, simply to acknowledge that there are such theories. 
Also, a number of statements have been twisted to support a case. e.g.  "There are only two detailed pictures of female reproductive organs and one is uncharacteristically distorted."   This is referenced, but nonsense.  I can think of four pictures of female reproductive organs. So the notion of ONLY two, rather than a plain statement "There are two drawings of female reproductive organs........."    Well, I mean, really!  How many detailed drawings of female reproductive organs does a person need to do, to prove a case?  A man like Leonardo would be perfectly able to have a consuming interest in female reproductive organs, (or any other organs for that matter) without it being any indication of his sexuality whatsoever!  
The interesting thing is that there is no mention here of how many detailed picture Leonardo did of male reproductive organs.  I can only think of two detailed studies.  And one shows both male and female.  Does it mean something?  Is four better than two?   Or is it simply that females grow babies?  NOTE: I am discounting non-detailed pics of male genitals, like those on the Vitruvian man.    His bits and pieces are visible simply because a males' generally are rather more visible than a females'.  But perhaps the writer of this nonsense hadn't noticed that. 
Anyway, there is no need for the insertion of words like "only two" to prove a point.  There are enough referenced opinions that are valid. 
Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Leonardo's sexuality

message: User: Pgarret (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again! Read the actual category before removing it. It doesn't say he was gay, it says part of his personal life was important to that history. He was accused of sodomy and there are a number of sources that discuss his sexuality in detail. He was an important historical figure. Obviously an important historical figure being accused of sexual crimes would be important to that history. You need to actually make some arguments about this article, rather than just pasting the same 7,000+ character argument which has nothing to do with this subject. Stalwart111 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. The category is there to help people to find information relevant to a topic. It is not to make assertions about whether a person is or is not "gay" (or anything else). Removing it just elimates a helpful resource for people wanting to use the encyclopedia. Paul B (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support  The "Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century" is essential to this article on Leonardo's personal life.  The fact that he was charged with sodomy is on record. It is, in fact, the only certain fact from that part of his life.  Historically, the charge gives us a picture of the life of young artists in Florence at a critical period in the history of art and of the city itself.  The category does not categorise Leonardo as being homosexual, (since he was cleared of the charge, as stated in the article). But it does indicate that an event in his life is part of LGBT History. The detailed investigation of his sexuality by Sigmund Freud and others is also part of LGBT History.Amandajm (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Copypaste or legit tweaking.  I tagged it but I leave it upto others to decide. Mtpaley (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo da Vinci fingerprint reconstructed 

message: Considering that DaVinci's paintings were mostly on the subject of religion and that he received last rites, I think this would be an interesting addition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguirado (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080116161540/http://www.metmuseum.org:80/special/Leonardo_Master_Draftsman/draftsman_left_essay.asp to https://www.metmuseum.org/special/Leonardo_Master_Draftsman/draftsman_left_essay.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080116161540/http://www.metmuseum.org:80/special/Leonardo_Master_Draftsman/draftsman_left_essay.asp to https://www.metmuseum.org/special/Leonardo_Master_Draftsman/draftsman_left_essay.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A article in the Guardian  quotes the author Simon Hewitt as saying that Leonardo had "ginger" hair.  And goes on to say that this was highly unusual, made him a laughing stock in Milan, and that he is lampooned in the illustrations of the Sforzida Illuminated manuscript. It also describes him in a portrait as being depicted as homosexual because he is looking at a young man.
What are the facts?  
:1. The hair on the figure is a reddish-brown colour, but not the colour usually described as "ginger" which is an orange colour. So the description itself is facile. 
:2. The article (and I suppose the Book it is based on) describes the colour as "rare".  In fact half the figures in the book seem to have the same coloured hair. Even in the illustration shown. The author (and the writer of the Guardian artile) might fail to grasp the fact that the artist was always limited by the colours that were available to them. e.g.  Jesus in a German printed Bible of the 19th century nearly always has bright yellow hair. The choices were yellow, magenta or Cyan. 
It can't be expressed with any certainty that the figure depicted in the manuscript is a sure indication that Leonardo had red hair. 
:Amandajm (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red hair  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is it possible to have more precise references regarding Stites' thesis on an alleged love affair between Leonardo and Cecilia Gallerani? Are there other sources on this subject? Kepleriwi (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecilia Gallerani