Talk:Caravaggio

message: The WP:LEAD is a summary of the body; it should not contain content that is not discussed in the body; and it should highlight the most important features of the topic. The lead here focuses on Caravaggio's biography, in places containing more detail than the body, and giving undue weight to particular incidents. Discussion of his technique and impact is scant, and buried in the last paragraph. I am cutting back the bio narrative and moving some of the detail into the body, while expanding discussion of his technique. For the time being, I have moved chunks of the lead into appropriate sections as hidden text, and I will later blend those passages in. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: By the painting of St Rosario do we meant the Madonna of the Rosary? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to refer to a lost work. The Madonna of the Rosary (Caravaggio) doesn't have that many figures, and none of them are turpiter ligati, which as I understand it means "in shameful bonds", "in wicked embrace". William Avery (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure though - there is no such hagiographical figure as St Rosario which really translates as the Holy Rosary. Agree there are not 30 figures or people in wicked embraces. We need Burton's original statement I think. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Caravaggio#Oeuvre this article says that work "is not known to have survived", but without a citation. The reference by Burton is just a footnote, see here William Avery (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I just think Burton has been misconstrued. There is no saint rosario - it must be that he was referring to the madonna of the rosary. I think the reference to Burton just confuses the paragraph and doesn't add much in any case - so suggest we take it out. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Rosario 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Caravaggio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.italica.rai.it/index.php?categoria=bio&scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060310151813/http://caravaggio.com/preview/attach/data01/D000199.htm to http://caravaggio.com/preview/attach/data01/D000199.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/caravaggio
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/arttheft/europe/italy/italyart.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207004930/http://www.duffyandsnellgrove.com.au/extracts/m_interview.htm to http://www.duffyandsnellgrove.com.au/extracts/m_interview.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/formats/container_remcar_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has added a controversial claim that Caravaggio "had at least one illegitimate daughter by Lavinia Giugioli, the wife or Ranuccio Tommasoni who Caravaggio killed in a duel over the affair". I have never seen a reference to this before. The source cited is a website in Italian. Before we can include this I think we need some robust academic sources that support this suggestion. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Galassi (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Notes from a CD? A clear case of not WP:RS. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't like it because it's poor editing. Go figure. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andrew Graham-Dixon covered it nicely and reliably per WP:RS, even if it contradicts your POV.--Galassi (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Andrew Graham-Dixon is RS. There is more info coming from his work.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew Graham Dixon is well respected. Maybe you could tell us what he actually said before suggesting (spuriously) that we have ignored any evidence presented. What does he actually say in the book - rather than just a newspaper article re-hashing it? Do other historians agree - what do they think? Then let's think carefully about how we put this into the text. There's no point asserting it as true - it remains speculative at most. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Andrew Graham-Dixon's biography of Caravaggio glosses over the artist's reputation for whoring and brawling." Don't leap to the conclusion that AGD is the last word on the subject. Given the amount of ink that's been devoted to the man it might be worth including a section on biographies and schiolarly interpretations.PiCo (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: PiCo you say the telegraph contradicts graham Dixon but haven't quoted the book in full? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I quote what isn't there? Graham-Dixon talks about Ranuccio having a baby daughter, but doesn't say or even hint that the child was Caravaggio's. I suggest you get the book from the local library.PiCo (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually thinking about this I have read the book and it didn't talk about a potential daughter. The Telegraph is inaccurate. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A daughter? 

message: Is it notable to include a statement that the beheading is one of the best paintings in the world according to a guardian columnist? Isn't there a risk that we start including lots of other peoples opinions on what's good and what's not and then it becomes a jumble. Why not leave this for the article on the painting itself. I also wonder if this isn't an attempt to play up the assets in Malta. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would lean exclude, with the statement on the painting's article being enough. I don't think it is a Malta-POV edit though. Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Personally I rarely agree with Jonathan Jones (journalist), but he is a serious figure. The article is arguably rather short on quotes establishing C's modern status, and I think this should be reinstated - Contaldo has already been reverted once, and of course has immediately re-reverted. I will reinstate a properly attributed version. Contaldo, given that consensus tends to not to agree with your changes, it is especially inappropriate to just make them and then keep reverting to maintain them. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Contaldo80 and Hrodvarsson. The cited article is the critic's "favourite artworks of all time," with no analysis, just brief synopses, and includes cave drawings. I'd leave this out. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added some analysis - and what's wrong with cave paintings? Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is wrong with cave drawings, but would you add to the Chauvet Cave page that they are among the ten greatest art works of all time? The article is an eye-catching bit of fluff (part of a series with the ten sexiest artworks ever) and not a strong source. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod - immediately you kick off a talk discussion with insults and abuse. Can I also remind you that my user name is Contaldo80 and not contaldo - this attention to detail is an area where you consistently show yourself lacking. As you'll see form above the broad consensus is in favour of leaving this information out. My original question was whether if we include a statement about this painting being a favourite of someone then do we include references to all paintings being someone's favourite. I think you'll agree that will mean the article ends up unwieldy. But I am happy for such a reference to put into the main article for the painting itself. Jonathan Jones is ok for an audience based i England but I think we should try and avoid being parochial if we can. Address the discussion points please - without resorting to lazy personal abuse. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not about to take lessons from you over accurate editing, or WP:NPA.  Your lack of self-awareness is mind-boggling. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask Johnbod whether you have a degree in history, or a degree in art history, or indeed a degree full-stop? Your self-confidence is extraordinarily strong, but I sense it may be founded on shallow ground. There's nothing wrong with being "self-taught" but an awareness of wider context can be valuable in instances such as this.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Of course, if one doesn't measure importance by accessibility, or early influence, none of this applies. The claim by Pomella relates to importance, not influence. "Peacock claim" used to be appallingly misused in art articles to remove all and any statements of the quality or importance of artists and works.  This has reduced in recent years, but we still suffer from the legacy of that period.  When something is generally agreed to be important, we are failing in our encyclopedic duties if this is not made clear to the reader.  Much of WP's coverage of art fails badly in this respect, content to just list facts. WP:PEACOCK refers to unreferenced text in Wikipedia's voice, and using good quotations is the best way to avoid that accusation: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." - which is exactly what the Jones passage was doing.  So I am strongly in favour (generally) of including quotes from strong experts expressing (ideally with some explanation, such as the quote I added to the Jones bit) the importance and evoking the atmosphere of works.  This is essential for the appreciation of art, and indeed much professional writing on art includes little else, which can be excessive, but we need more of this than we usually have in our articles.  If this article were to be put up for WP:FAC, it would need a good deal more of this than it currently has - as I said at the start here "The article is arguably rather short on quotes establishing C's modern status". Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with Rococo1700. Johnbod you sadly miss the point. This amendment was inserted by a Maltese editor. I have spent a lot of time on Malta. They are very proud of their island, but sometimes get a bit carried away by wanting the world to know that they have the best of this or that. But you don't really care about that - your motivation is just to pick a fight with me.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh! But the quote isn't by a Maltese.  My real point is more general - good quotes are good. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beheading of John the Baptist 

message: 28 or 29 September? The footnote in the info-box actually shows 29 Sept in the source. RDK also shows 29. The footnote in the main text shows 28 Sept. What should be reported here? Rwos (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth day 

message: As I know nothing of Renaissance art, when I first stumbled upon this page I thought it was regarding Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. A simple Google search will show that the world is generally similarly confused. Perhaps the disambiguation or the end of the first paragraph could have something to the effect of, "See Michelangelo for the high renaissance artist of that mononym, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. " Jyg (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've changed it, but not like that. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not starting right out the gate with the name "Michelangelo" was a good idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyg (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelangelo, the other one 

message: I feel many parts if the article, especially the biography, has an argumentative tone, as if it is an essay being written to convince someone of something. The sixth paragraph under the heading "Beginnings in Rome"  states that one of his paintings, "is even more psychologically complex, and perhaps Caravaggio's first true masterpiece." The job of an encyclopedia is not to tell the reader what to think of a painting, artist, politician, etc., it is to inform the reader. Overall, I think some major clean up is needed.
Blipslisle (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persuasive Tone 

message: I was asked to create a wikipedia article for Dr. Roberta Lapucci, who I work with, she is a renowned art historian, publish author, university professor, conservator etc. Clearly at the top of her field but somehow missing from here other than her materials being used as foundational reference for this page. What's the correct way to approach this? Should I recuse myself and ask someone here to take care of this omission or, given her clear academic merits, can I submit a draft and disclose my working relationship with dr Lapucci?
thanks in advance,
Jacoboss~enwiki (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with missing article