Talk:Sandro Botticelli/Archive 1

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

Comment by anon.-possible problem with the article?

I'm not an art person, can anyone who is comment on this edit? JoshuaZ 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Only very simple folk might think that there is one painting titled "Adoration of the Magi". --Wetman 08:21, 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)

Botticelli's Last years.

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).

Addition of content

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)

Question

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 Primavera and Birth of Venus were not painted for Castello

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)

"Lamentation Over The Dead Christ" - links reversed in Anthology

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)

Template

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)

IMO, large footer templates should be collapsed by default to avoid this problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo de' Medici

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)

Birth Year

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

Now removed, but you could have done that yourself.... Lee M 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Resurrecting an old thread... The source currently cited ([1]) says 1445 at the top but 1444 in the first paragraph, plus we have an uncited 1446 from an IP ([2]). Anyone? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors have added different dates because the sources are all over the map depending on when published...Vasari gave the year as 1447, and this date is found in books published before 1900. Some historians in the first decade of the 20th century favored 1446. Borenius (1916) wrote that there was "some reason to think" the correct date fell between February 18, 1444-February 18, 1445, and mid 20th century sources usually follow him by giving the birthdate as 1444-1445. The latest sources seem to be settling on 1445 (Schneider 2002; Patrick, Renaissance and Reformation vol 1, 2007). I'm not an expert on Botticelli and don't know if historians have really settled the matter beyond question, but 1446 seems to be out. The NNDB source is manifestly confused and shouldn't be cited as a RS. Ewulp (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ewulp. That sounds very reasonable. I've noted the disagreement among sources in the article ([3]), using c. as per MOS:DATES. The way I've cited R&R is probably not quite right. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article currently indicates his birth year as c.2005! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.56.67 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth of year

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)

Misecllaneous

Is there anything in the article to suggest why the marker "gay, lesbian, or bisexual' has been added to Botticelli's article?

The addition was made by User:Bearcat, 23:04, 22 Jan 2005. --Wetman 23:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I bugged Bearcat about this, politely, and we had this exchange:

"The bottom line is that I added the category tag because he was on the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people; I really don't know enough about him to add anything biographical." Bearcat 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Let's "de-Out" him. The list loses any interest if it gets fuzzy edges." --Wetman 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Imcomprehensive

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)

I've reverted good-faith references to the painting, because the content was unsourced and read as original research. Perhaps references citing reliable sources can be found to support its claims, and the prose can be revised, too. Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert a big copyvio at the painting also. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Raphaelites - Botticelli fans or not?

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)

Suzanne Fagence Cooper, art historian " from the moment Botticelli's art is shown in Manchester there's a real change in opinion about his work and..B. becomes a real cult figure somebody the artists who aspire to be on the cutting edge of the art world are looking to - the The Mystical Nativity (Botticelli) worked a particular magic on members of the pre-raphaelite circle - the artists Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Edward Burne-Jones both adapted elements of it for their own work"... the writer and atist John Ruskin helped to give the painting its name,

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)

Private life

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)

Born March 1???

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)

Early Life Education?

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)

The point is indeed that 14 was rather late to begin an apprenticeship at that time, and about the usual time to finish a full schooling, whereas most artist apprentices dropped out of school for the studio. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 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)

Replacing article with 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica text

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)

In my opinion replacing our current article with a copy of a 1911 article doesn't sound appealing. It seems to be a reasonably good source - I haven't read the text - add important and relevant text here sourced to the 1911 Britannica...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No thanks! Far too many of our Old Master bios still are EB 1911, which this probably once was too. The art articles were singled out for criticism at the time, and are now very outdated. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of simply using EB as a replacement? The reason we have wikipedia is so individuals can construct their own articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The point would be to create the best possible encyclopedia. I thought that was the point of Wikipedia, not just to provide a forum for people to write things. There are blogs for that. Don Quixote de la Mancha (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're just saying that EB is by default a better resource than wikipedia then I suspect you've missed the point of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would guess that most of the information from the 1911 article is still useful and relevant. Any newer information could be added, with the 1911 article as the foundation. Don Quixote de la Mancha (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Prefer not to replace with 1911 EB. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:07, 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)

Technique

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)

I put the caption in the article and replaced it with the WHOLE picture of the same theme, and yes - I don't think that a picture like that shows the technique much, but most of all, the face is cut in half. But nevertheless we ask third oppinion, from the main editors of art related topics. Ceoil, Amandajm, what do you think. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality versus private life

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)

The term "private life" is perfectly familiar to native speakers. The section begins with a paragraph about his money affairs, and continues with his living arrangements (always in the family house) and other property owned (in fact the only aspect of his private life where we have much or certain information). Only then is anything to do with sexuality introduced. To call the whole section "Sexuality" is grossly misleading. You have not avoided edit-warring at all, reverting 3 times to defend this silly change! Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker thanks and the term is familiar as prurient and old-fashioned. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This section talks about more than just sex. "Personal life" captures it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.9.139 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't you get it that sex and sexuality are not the same thing? Would you like me to explain it more clearly for you? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the section to "Personal life". While for some, "Private life" is simply a euphemism for Sexuality, the paragraph is not primarily about Botticelli's sexuality. Mduvekot (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not. There are three paragraphs and two of them deal with sexuality. Personal is the same as private - it suggests some things shouldn't be spoken about openly. This lacks maturity. I suggest two headings under personal life - Finances and Sexuality. I'm tired of homosexuality being hidden away. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We usually make a distinction between someone's professional life (their career) and other aspects of their life. Some of that is public (but not professional) and some of it is private. Sexuality can be related to any of those three. The most interesting and relevant is the one where sexuality intersects with an artist's art. I've looked at a rather large number (more than 100, via [5] for example) of articles about gay artists and can find only a few that have a "Sexuality" heading, Carravagio, Andy Warhol where "Sexuality" is a subheading of "Personal life" and Pier Paolo Pasolini. Pretty much all the others have a section called "Personal Life" if they discuss it at all. "Private life" is not used. I seems to me that there is significant, established, consensus that "Personal life" is the commonly used heading discussion for the non-professional aspects of an artists' biography. Additionally, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies reminds us that 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)

Agreed. In addition everything about SB's sexuality is highly uncertain. John Ruskin, the critic most interested in the subject, had elaborate speculative theories about his heterosexual tastes. We seem to have consensus here. Thanks all! Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No we don't have consensus thank you. Both private life and personal life are euphemisms - deliberately designed to conceal underlying issues. The material in the section specifically deals with sexuality. I cannot understand why we can't be transparent. And why have you mentioned the lead - we're not talking about the lead? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just checked the Michelangelo article; the topic of his sexuality is under the header Personal life. Makes sense to me. I see clear consensus to use Personal life in this article. Coldcreation (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Personal life" covers it. Biographies of people who are presumed to be heterosexual seem never to have "Sexuality" headings; does anybody think this is indefensible concealment? William Shakespeare gets a section heading (and a separate Sexuality of William Shakespeare article) because his sexuality has been the subject of a great deal of speculation and volumes of writing; with William S. Burroughs this is not the case. Ewulp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason that biographies of people who are presumed to be heterosexual seem never to have "Sexuality" headings is that the world assumes everyone to be heterosexual until demonstrated otherwise. In any case my original point still stands - I don't like "private life" (it sounds prudish and old-fashioned, as if some things are off limits and it's not really good taste to talk about them). "Personal life" is also euphemistic - as in the early modern age there was absolutely no distinction between personal and public (the idea of "privacy" would have been scoffed at, particularly in 16th century Florence). However, I can live with the latter if there are still clear sub-headings to indicate that there are distinct aspects to this "personal life" that are of interest. It can not all be lumped together and then the door closed. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Amazing revelations

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)

After initially focusing on inserting the material a while back and using a broad title, I then later decided that "sexuality" was a better way to describe the content. I was baffled that you insisted "private life" should be the term we stick too - and when the two titles are set side by side then yes the former is oddly euphemistic and prurient. That you subsequently delight in posting something about "amazing revelations" suggest it was all a bit sore for you. I'm also concerned that you put the word "homophobe" in my mouth when I never said it. Don't misrepresent thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

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 quote is from the Hudson DT piece, which you introduced, and certainly seems to relate to SB. The clear implication, which is already there from several sources, is indeed that "Botticelli wasn't really guilty of sodomy, just a smear campaign". Obviously this suggestion will be unacceptable to you. I try very hard & have read hundreds of pages of the best sources when improving this article. Unlike you. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"I try very hard & have read hundreds of pages of the best sources when improving this article. Unlike you." Assume Good Faith, and Avoid Personal Attacks or you will be reported to administrators and may be blocked from editing. Nor do I think repeated blanket reversions are helpful. There are three issues that need to be dealt with: (1) "family" alongside finance; (2) the claim of florentine smear tactics (and incidentally the fact that it was used as a tactic to discredit doesn't automatically mean that a quarter of florentine men weren't at it); (3) The final paragraph on Botticelli's wider influence on art. Let's deal with them constructively. I suggest it always helps to keep an open-mind on a subject, and not to relate too closely to historical figures on a personal level. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The advice "not to relate too closely to historical figures on a personal level" is good, and should be applied to all your editing. Your passionate determination to assert the gay identity of historical figures, whatever the evidence, has been a problem for years. If you don't think "repeated blanket reversions are helpful", then STOP DOING THEM! The same applies to personal attacks, which you have made in several edits and edit summaries here, against various editors. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Your passionate determination to assert the gay identity of historical figures, whatever the evidence, has been a problem for years". Provide evidence, William, or immediately retract your abusive claim. Or I will make a formal complaint. You've already indicated above that you don't think I've bothered to conduct any research on this issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, make a formal complaint - your block log will speak for itself. Who's William - are you confusing this with another of your edit-warring disputes? So of course, you've done yet another blanket reversion (including yet again reinstating your basic grammatical error). Of course you haven't bothered to "conduct any research on this issue" beyond a quick google search on "Botticelli + gay" or something. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

On your personal user page you indicate quite clearly that you have been paid to edit wikipedia pages for commercial marketing purposes in order to promote certain items within museums and galleries. Most editors edit wikipedia for the benefit of human knowledge, rather than to make money. Maybe visitors to museums aren't interested in troubling themselves with any psychological insight into what drives artists to create; maybe they just like looking at "pretty things" - untroubled by messy questions like sex and love. Nevertheless, I've asked politely that you engage constructively when making edits, and set out arguments as to why a certain approach is better - so we can find a way forward. We now seem to have descended into a position where you are simply directing homophobic abuse as above.Contaldo80 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't say any such thing, and indeed have never been paid by a "museum or gallery" at all, or by anyone for any "commercial marketing purposes". Your comprehension skills seem as poor as other aspects of your editing. You have NEVER done anything "politely", on this or any other page I've seen you edit; that rather than homophobia is why you cause ructions wherever you go. Others may find your speculations about "visitors to museums" revealing; I'll refrain from commenting! Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Poor comprehension skills", "failure to conduct research", "lack of politeness", "cause ructions", "revealing speculations", "block logs", "edit-warring disputes", "basic grammatical errors". A litany of personal abuse that demonstrates a failure to engage on improving the article itself. They must have loved you at WikimediaUK - you were clearly a good find. Lol. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yada, yada. The edit stats show who has improved this article - and who has not. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I fear you may have over-estimated your value. If you think referring to someone's "private life" is an improvement - as if we're contributing to a Victorian sex manual - then maybe the stats do tell a story. The upside is that you'll at least have something interesting now to say in your next blog. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Boy angels"

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)

Firstly Contaldo80 is my user name and not Contaldo. Attention to detail is very important in this game. Hudson hasn't made a "howler" - no-one knows what an angel looks like as, of course, they don't exist. The section you removed - without even attempting consensus says "The art critic, Mark Hudson, has written about how Botticelli's approach towards sexuality has influenced modern art, particularly for this artists that wanted to break away from the "rigid morality of the Victorian era". His figures often look adrogynous with boy angels looking like girls". You haven't challenged the first sentence at all - other than to make some point about catalogues or something. The second part of the sentence is not intended to deal with Catholic theology - he's making a point about androgynous looks. It's a general observation about how Botticelli is playing with gender types. Or you're going to tell me that all depictions of Saint Michael don't generally show a robust muscular figure wearing armour? Are you therefore challenging the paragraph on the grounds that the source is not strong/ credible enough or that the source is incorrect? I think you need to be clearer.Contaldo80 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Both certainly - I think that's very clear. This article generally uses references of far higher quality than Hudson, and as I suggested above, there might be decent sources in the V&A catalogue saying something usable (but not I think in this section) about "Botticelli's approach towards sexuality" (very poor phrasing - this is of course exactly what we have little information about). But if you remove the boy angels nonsense, Hudson isn't saying anything clear in your text. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As I thought, looking at the V&As own web pages on the exhibition, and better reviews, another and another, suggests that the emphasis of the exhibition, dealing with the 19th and 20th century reception of SB, was very much on the female figures, especially the (very few) nude ones. Pretty boys, angelic or not, are virtually un-mentioned, bringing WP:UNDUE into play. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"This article generally uses references of far higher quality than Hudson" - surely this is simply your opinion. If you want to say something about the influence of the female nudes then great go ahead and do that - no-one's stopping you. Incidentally a read of the Bible - if you have time to do this recognising your busy schedule as "wikipedian in residence" for so many distinguished organisations does indicate gender for angels. The story of Abraham and the there angels refers to three men. The story of Tobit and Raphael refers to a man, and Raphael calls Gabriel his "brother". One look at Botticelli's angels and anyone can see that he used post-pubescent boys as his models to capture their "androgynous" look. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All Renaissance artists pre-Raphael normally used studio boys as models for their angels and female figures, because they were available when female nude models were awkward to arrange etc. Another reason why quoting Hudson without context is so inappropriate. You and no doubt Hudson are attributing motives to Botticelli we simply don't know, and which contradict the mass of criticism and scholarship, which emphasizes his interest in female beauty. I don't mind the new person's quote you've added, but the Hudson bit needs to go. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mark Hudson is a known writer. He is writing for a popular audience in a regular newspaper column. He's not a specialist on Botticelli or Renaissance art. If he is making contentious or big claims about Botticelli and sexuality, something more than a newspaper article would be needed. If what Hudson is saying is generally accepted, it should be possible to find better quality sources (books, journal articles) that echo it. If it is a minority POV then there is a question of WP:WEIGHT. If what Hudson is saying contradicts basic factual issues (typical use of studio boys by Renaissance artists; typical depictions of androgynous angels by Renaissance artists), there is a question of Reliability. -- GreenC 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Savonarola

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?

I believe this article in Smithsonian Magazine with reference to a lecture by an art history professor [7]JenniferNM (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"may have", it says, all covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Phooey" and faked citations are invalid reasons for revert.

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)

See WP:ESDOS "Don't make snide comments", "Use neutral language," etc.. WP:ESDOS is a policy page, and one of the core five pillars. -- GreenC 01:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, I enjoyed your quote about Kafka's The Trial. Indeed, head games and false accusations are frowned upon in Wikipedia, yet are unfortunately still commonplace. 67.248.17.85 (talk) 03:07, 4 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)