User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2015/December

Leonardo da Vinci Self Portrait

Hello,

I would like to know why you have changed the article to a supposed 'stable' state.

You have removed sources and actually provided incorrect links. The citation you provided on this "It is generally thought that if the drawing represents Leonardo, then this is the only formal self-portrait executed by him." is not in that book.

There was a discussion in the talk page about this.

You are vandalizing!

Walnut77 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that making statements such as this:

"The portrait of a man in red chalk (circa 1510) in the Biblioteca Reale, Turin is widely, though not universally, accepted as a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci"

is YOUR opinion. I am starting to think you are the same user as all the previous ones.

Walnut77 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I could be wrong. If you have citations please provide them. OTHERWISE DO NOT REMOVE PERFECTLY GOOD CITATIONS.

YOU DO NOT HELP WIKIPEDIA.

Walnut77 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Walnut77, firstly, I am not the same person. I have been absent from Wiki for some months, moving house. If you check my credentials, I am the major author of Leonardo da Vinci, Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci and other Leonardo articles as well as other major art and architecture article such as Italian Renaissance painting. Two of the sources that you have given are newspaper articles. They state that the portrait is "universally acknowledged" as Leonardo. You know for a fact that this is not true. If it 'was' true, then no one would be arguing about it. In fact, the drawing is widely disputed by reputable art historians, including Martin Kemp as not representing Leonardo. The uncertainty about the subject needs to be stated. The identification as Leonardo is19th century and based on the image in the School of Athens. However, even the tradition that Plato represents Leonardo has come under challenge.

Amandajm (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The uncertainty of the subject IS stated, there is an entire section on it! The newspaper article comes from a very reputable newspaper (AND NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE IS IT STATED THAT IT IS CERTAIN IT IS HIM) It states it is considered to be him, something that IS TRUE and is in the sources! I DO NOT KNOW THIS FOR A FACT AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Besides, in your edits none of the sources mentioned had anything similar to what was claimed (This is why I edited this article because it was filled with opinion and inaccurate sources), so it is very strange to me you call it a "stable" version.

And how are these credentials? Another wikipedia page IS NOT a source!

A source is a published book, a published news article, a study by a reputable university etc. This is what should be used for this page if you really are worried about accurate information.

If the person is disputed so much then please add citations to the Controversy section ACTUAL citations.

Walnut77 (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw you changed the article again.

There is not just one reference that is incorrect. Every reference provided in the controversy below the first paragraph is not accurate. The introduction contains misleading words AND YOU ERASED AN ACCURATE SOURCE. Read what you are putting in the introduction and give me a reference to your claim that it is not universally accepted.

You should be ashamed of acting like this with so many years in wikipedia and seeing HOW MUCH EMPHASIS YOU HAVE PLACED ON SOURCES in other edits of yours.

Walnut77 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also funny that the Italian version of the article says this:

"Il disegno del celebre autoritratto, l'unico sicuro dell'artista, viene in genere datato ai suoi ultimi anni di vita, quando viveva in Francia al servizio di Francesco I"

The design of the celebrated self-potrait, the only certain of the artist, is dated to the last years of his life, when he was living in France at the service of Francesco I'

go figure...

Walnut77 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Walnut77

Yes, of course the Italian site says that it is genuine.

Firstly, the introductory paragraph of an article needs to broadly cover the facts in an accurate way. The fact is that the identity is widely but not universally accepted.

the details of how and when it first came to be accepted, I.e. 19th century, and who precisely accepts or doesn't accept it, are the stuff that go in the body of the article. No references are needed at all, in the introduction, because it is a generall summary.

The introduction was accurate, until you fiddled with it.

I haven't checked the reference that you gave in the intro of the article, only the two news articles. The two news articles do not carry any academic weight at all.

What the articles lacks, but you have not been smart enough to identify, is a list of those reputable art historians who believe that it represents Leonardo, and those who do not. The reason why this is missing is that the article was never completed. that is why it also had a prominent sign saying that more citation was needed. I don't know who added that. I quite often add 'citation needed' tags to articles that I am working on, to prompt myself, so it might even have been me.

Using ONE author to support your case that the work is generally regarded as Leonardo is simply not adequate, if used only to support one side of the case. If, on the other hand, you find an author who writes a list of those who support, and those who disagree, then they can be cited. You can't present one side of a controversy as the facts.

If the body of the article states that the identification is a matter of controversy, then that is the fact that should be clearly stated in the introduction.

This is not so important if there is only one challenge to an identification. But in this case the questioning of the identification is about as widespread as the acceptance. the more reputable the writer, the more they are likely to approach the subject with hesitance and say either that it is unknown or questionable.

The fact that you are quoting the newspapers on the identity indicates that you don't really know a great deal about art history, but you are buying into this because, like many others, you are fascinated by Leonardo, and would like to believe that this really is an image of the man himself. Unfortunately, the experts are out on this one, and we cannot be certain. That is what the intro of the article must reflect.

I also need to tell you that a great number of identifications and attributions made in the 19th century, before the advantages that we have from good photography, have since been discounted. Claiming a 19th century attribution is almost meaningless nowadays, unless late 20th and 21st century scholarship supports it.

Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No the italian site says it is HIS ONLY CERTAIN self-potrait. (This is why I use capitals).

In italian, the drawing is also called "Self-Portrait" = Autoritratto

I am not asking you to tell me these things, I am asking you to put citations: Who are the 20th and 21st century scholars who do not support it? Where does it say it is not UNIVERSALLY accepted? where did you come up with this word?

And again, the article Does not say it is him, it says it was identified as him and has been regarded as him. There is a section on the controversy as well. But do not add controversies that do not exist in literature! If they do then by all means put them and cite them.

Walnut77 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You were very quick to use the citations that you have not checked. At least the news articles do say what is stated and besides, they were just put there as a counter argument to what was being said before that it was not universally accepted.

I decided not to use that word at all because it is very misleading Either way!

Walnut77 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am too busy to continue with this silliness just now. Why don't you do something to make the lede reflect the facts? Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

what is lede?

Walnut77 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction. The easiest way to fix it is to revert it. Also return the citation needed banner to the top of the next section, to alert me to add more.citations. Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Walnut77, it has just come to my attention that you left an edit summary stating "person continues to vandalise" in reference to my edit, presuming me to be someone with whom you had a previous talk page dispute. When someone with a different name suddenly appearance and makes an edit that you dislike, don't be so hasty to assume it is a sock puppet.

An edit of the type that I made is not "vandalism" in any sense. Your edit failed to create an introduction that reflected the article, and it introduced a one sided view,a one sided reference to a controversial subject, and two spurious references that have relevance to the fact that the image is deteriorated and under conservation (that is news and therefore a news citation is in order) but have no relevance to the fact that art historians do not agree.

I would like a apology for your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. The inappropriate edits are those than continue to attempt to disguise the fact that the identity of the sitter has been questioned for many years.

As I have told you, I do not have access to my library. I will find the citations, whenI do. Meanwhile, as you are probably younger and more mobile than I am, why don't you get yourself to your local library, find up-to-date books and journals and do some solid work on it?

Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Art Editathon

Hi Amandajm, Sorry about the late notice, but it has been the same for all of us ... if you can, you might like to come along to an editathon about women and art at the MCA tomorrow. Experienced editors are needed. Meetup: Art+Feminism at MCA Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sydney University women

Hi Amanda. Another editathon that I think you will be interested in this Friday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. All the best! --99of9 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)