Talk:Leonardo da Vinci

Just where are the remains of Leonardo actually interred?

It seems funny that anyone has to ask such a question concerning such a famous person! But the real facts seem to be that "NO ONE" knows for sure! Please see; http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/01/31/italians_seek_access_and_clues_in_da_vinci_remains/

In reality, it seems that a lot of the famous people of the past seem to have the same problem!!!

Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Ronald L. Hughes

It has been interesting to watch the mythologisation of the Chapelle Hubert claim over the last forty years. When I first visited Amboise in 1969 under the guidance of a local historian, the claim was only a possible attribution, specifically that on removing the panel over the chapel door depicting a hunt, a skeleton was found behind it, which was considered as possibly being that of Leonardo, as it was neither buried in holy ground (interdicted to a homosexual) nor yet in unhallowed ground! A similar practice was used in the burial of St Mark in Alexandria. Since then, the French authorities have gradually allowed the vague hypothesis to be changed into a definitive statement that he was buried in the Chapel, although there still seems to be no evidence either way, understandably given he had no descendants whose DNA could be tested. I therefore think the outright statement included in the meme needs serious qualification unless authoritative evidence can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.173.156 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo had made his Confession and received Communion before he died, which would indicate that he was in a state of Grace, regardless of the accusation that had been made in his youth. It is my theory that he did this for similar reasons to the man in Boccacio's story, simply to avoid embarrassing his host. But the fact that he is known to have done this means that there is no reason why he would not have been buried in hallowed ground. Amandajm (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Da Vinci and polyphasic-sleep

Hi, Wikipedians.

I am from Vietnam and I read on a local newspapers an article describing Da Vinci had practiced polyphasic-sleep in his whole life. Is it right?--115.73.15.104 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To keep from spending too much time asleep he invented a water clock which set off an alarm based on the amount of water flowing from one container to another. Once the container was full it would tip over and spill water all over his face. BlubBlubBBLUEHH!! -- Jodon | Talk 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

2 April, right? A day late? PiCo (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my UTC time zones were screwed up, anyway I was only 12 minutes late (UTC). Guess I should have set my water clock to an earlier time! -- Jodon | Talk 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo also was an ingenious philosopher and mystic

Sergey L. Markov worked as Fulbright Scholar at California State University (Fullerton, USA) and now he is a Professor of Psychology at the KROK University (Kiev, Ukraine) writes: "Leonardo also was an ingenious and peculiar philosopher and mystic. Leonardo’s paintings are full of philosophical and spiritual reflections. Some of his painting and writing has become a mystifying riddle to the people. Thus for acute perception of the world and development of imagination Leonardo created puzzles and predictions: "Men from the most remote countries shall speak one to another and shall reply". (Internet. Telephon). Invisible money will cause many who spend it to triumph. (Electronic funds transfers). Leonardo also offered the special method of imagination stimulating: "In order to excite the mind, contemplate walls covered by shapeless stains. Find in them mountain landscape, trees, battles and faces". His scientific theories, like his artistic innovations, were based on careful scientific observation. He believed that the power of perception and ability to drawing the received observations, are the universal keys to the nature's secrets." Source: [1]

• This article ( [2] ) contains a lot of information about Leonardo Da Vinci. This information could be useful to improve the encyclopedia. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if this adds anything particularly new. I'm also not sure where, or how this can be included specifically in the article (if it can even be included at all, as the existing article is probably already too large for further expansion). Maybe you can suggest somewhere? -- Jodon | Talk 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all very well citing bits such as: "Men from the most remote countries shall speak one to another and shall reply. (Internet. Telephon). Invisible money will cause many who spend it to triumph. (Electronic funds transfers)."

But this is simply to fall prey to his wry humour. It's just what he wanted you to believe! Without actually looking it up in his notebooks, I think you'll find that these two 'predictions' are simply descriptions of then-current activities -- namely letter-writing and (probably) credit-notes. The article already refers to an easily consultable online collection of these. --PL (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers.

• Other encyclopedic material of an eminent scholar. [3]

• See also: Jacobsen, Aaron H. Leonardo da Vinci. Scholastic.com. [4]

Very reliable sources. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have the contents of those articles pretty well covered, either in this article or in the articles that deal more fully with individual paintings and other significant works. Amandajm (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The preposition da in the normative (Tuscan-based) pronunciation of Italian still requires raddoppiamento sintattico: check the Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia.--Carnby (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Isabella d'Este ?

The woman appearing in the portrait known as Isabella d'Este is actually Leonardo's mother Caterina in distant memory. The woman appearing in the portrait looks like the Mona Lisa and not like Isabella d'Este. See: Titian, Isabella d'Este, 1534 - 1536. This cartoon which has survived must have been drawn for an important work. See the cartoon in London, National Gallery. The only possible important work we are aware of is the Mona Lisa. See also the veil and the upper dress cut, rounded and not in straight lines. See Roni Kempler's comment [5]. Zaqxswer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the images of Isabella d'Este are inconsistent. The Leonardo portrait looks more like Isabella in the earliest portraits, but not like the Titian portrait in which she appears very fair.

Regarding whether the Isabella portrait or the Mona Lisa are likenesses of Leonardo's mother, this is speculation and nothing more. Both pictures may bear a passing likeness to his mother, because artists tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. Very few portrait painters can free themselves from a subjective image in their mind and truly look at the person seated in front of them. In saying this, I don't mean that Leonardo 's painting closely resemble his mother, or are portraits of his mother, but only that they may have characteristics of his mother. Other people have claimed that they all have been influenced by the face of Salai.

The pictures below, by Peter Lely show five different women, but certain characteristics are retained in every portrait.

Many people who write bloggs or make comments about what they perceive in the works of Leonardo have rarely looked at other paintings and may have no understaing of the common processes of portrait painting and the way in which an artist's perceptions and style can affect the end results. Amandajm (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

See Isabella d'Este (18 May 1474 – 13 February 1539) and not Isabella d'Este, Duchess of Parma

(3 October 1635 – 21 August 1666). Zaqxswer (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of which picture you are referring to. The Titian iis probably not a good likeness because she didn't like the portrait that he did and got him to knock 30 years off her age. He wassimply imagining what she might have looked like. He appears to have made her much too blonde (to be expected of Titian)! Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the point that I am making about the Lely portraits? I am not relating them to Isabella. I am using them to diffuse the idea that various pictures by Leonardo (including the Mona Lisa) represent his mother. The point I am making is that any given artist may produce a generic facial type, and use it to represent different people. These women (Lely Women) all have the same eyes, regardless of who they are. Maybe they are the eyes of someone Lely loved. Maybe they are the eyes that looked back at him when he was shaving his face in the morning. Regardless! They are generic Lely eyes.

So it is wrong to presume that because similarities can be found in the faces that Leonardo painted, that they therefore represent the same individual. As for them representing his mother, that is simply a Freudian Oedipus theory. We don't know that Leonardo was devoted to his mother. We do know that someone in his household called Caterina was buried at considerable expense, so it is presumed that it was his mother rather than a servant of the house. That is all that is known for sure. Anything else is speculation.

Amandajm (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we know much more for sure about Mona Lisa. We are not sure that the woman appearing in the portrait is Isabella d'Este. Zaqxswer (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The drawing that is thought to be Isabella plainly isn't a cartoon for the Mona Lisa. It has been pricked for transfer to a painting, which obviously wasn't the Mona Lisa. If you want to compare the drawing to a known image of Isabella, then the Titian is the wrong image to chose. We know that it is a retrospective image and that Titian was trying to please her. Amandajm (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. We can only say that this is a drawing of a woman, perhaps Isabella d'Este. Your theory is not complete because artists don't tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. See for example Ginevra de' Benci, Lady with an Ermine and La belle ferronnière. The Mona Lisa closely resembles Madonna, and Madonna has the characteristics of his mother. Isabella d'Este closely resembles Mona Lisa. Zaqxswer (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kempler presents an interesting theory, nothing more. He's connected a few loose dots and drawn one possible conclusion, not necessarily the correct one. I, for example, would support a theory presented by author Robert Payne that Leonardo's alleged "Turin self-portrait" is actually a portrait of Leonardo's father, based on an understanding of how Leonardo's drawing style and choice of materials changed over time, the age of Leonardo/his father around the time, and the fact that Leonardo was artistically incapacitated for roughly the last 5 years of his life. Its a nice theory, but unfortunately my wishing it does not make it so.

I would like to know where you get your knowledge about Leonardo's mother's "characteristics". Practically nothing is known about her, yet you claim otherwise. Perhaps you could enlighten me to some sources.

From Wikipedia's point of view, this theorizing is too close to original research. I wish it were otherwise, but Wikipedia is not the place for speculation unless it can be backed up by scholarly sources (especially for biographies). Supporting a belief has limitations, and does not necessarily make something true. Jodon | Talk 13:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Study for a portrait, perhaps Isabella d'Este (1500) Louvre

Here we discuss the drawing known as Isabella d'Este and not the Kempler's theory. Isabella d'Este is not the "one possible conclusion, not necessarily the correct one". Zaqxswer (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You brought up Kempler, not me - "See Roni Kempler's comment". Your entire first post in this section is a direct quote from that comment. Clearly you have no references other than that to support your "knowledge" of Leonardo's mother's "characteristics". Jodon | Talk 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is Kempler's research. I agree with you that we don't know much about her (why ?) and about the Mona Lisa (why ?) Zaqxswer (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is no certain knowledge of Leonardo's mother. No-one has any idea what her characteristics were. No-one knows whether Leonardo was very attached to her, or whether he was merely dutiful. Freud proposed certain theories, and some people have run with them.
• You have plainly not understood me when you comment: Your theory is not complete because artists don't tend to paint features in a similar way in every picture that they do. You have taken my statement in the most simplistic manner possible.

Read what is written and think about it, before responding:

"The pictures .... by Peter Lely show five different women, but certain characteristics are retained in every portrait."

"Many people ..... may have no understaing of the common processes of portrait painting and the way in which an artist's perceptions and style can affect the end results."

• When you look at Ginevra de Benci and the Woman with the Ermine, you are seeing a woman with a round broad face and a sulky expression, and a woman with a long oval face and an animated expression.

When I look at the same pictures I see that the manner of painting the eyes, the mouth, the skin, etc is very similar. When I look at the drawing of hands that are believed to be for part of the Ginevera portrait that is lost, I see an even stronger resemblance. Yes, they are very different girls, just as Lely's women are all different, but the artist in each case has overlaid his own concept of feminine beauty on the woman that he has painted.

Amandajm (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know what Isabella looked like, and why this is regarded as a portrait of that lady, then look at these: Bust of Isabella d'Este, Medal of Isabella d'Este. In the second instance there is no room for doubt as to whom the profile portrait represents. Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. They don't have the same forehead. They don't not have the same lips... Zaqxswer (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguing like this could go on forever. Unfortunately, this is not the place for a debate on opinions or beliefs, much as any of us would wish otherwise. Wikipedia is not a forum. Speculation can be included if it is sourced and/or quoted properly. Either you have reliable sources to support your arguments or you don't. End of story.

Your only reference for your arguments so far here is Kempler. If you have more please provide links. My initial searches show Kempler has copied and pasted the same comments on multiple websites, such as here, here, and here, without backing up that "research". Where is the published material of that research? Jodon | Talk 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! let's leave it right there..... Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The lost painting seems to have turned up today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10356401/Leonardo-da-Vinci-painting-lost-for-centuries-found-in-Swiss-bank-vault.html Dsrguru (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a detailed drawing exists, so someone was bound to come up with a painting sooner or later. It's not really very convincing, is it? Amandajm (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging from that article Carlo Pedretti has already authenticated it as either Leonardo or his workshop, and carbon dating asserts its age, although Martin Kemp is dubious. Still, Kemp thinks the Salvator Mundi is an authentic Leonardo, so you never know! -- Jodon | Talk 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No. This is not an authentic Leonardo. Carlo Pedretti has got himself excited about things before, and then suddenly gone very quiet. This painting is plainly nowhere near the quality of the Salvator Mundi. There are a whole lot of things about it that are simply not good enough. Amandajm (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know your credentials as an art historian, but popular opinion seems to be that it is more likely authentic than not, so shouldn't its discovery be mentioned in the article? Dsrguru (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No. This is possibly the tenth "authentic" Leonardo discovered this decade. They range from feasible like Portrait of a Young Fiancée to absolutely ghastly.

See: List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Disputed attributions and List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Some recent attributions. In the latter, you will notice both the variations in style and quality. People who want their discovery to be by Leonardo always call in Pedretti because he can be relied upon to make enthusiastic-sounding comments that are generally noncommittal, but which can easily be misinterpreted as agreement.

"Popular opinion" isn't enough to make a thing authentic. Its discovery doesn't need mentioning here. The painting is nowhere near good enough to be genuine, but the public (in general) are unlikely to recognise that fact. It is far far below Bella Principessa in quality.

On the other hand, it does require adding to the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Some recent attributions.

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

May someone please fix the area where it talks about his helicopter design to say it was called an ornithopter. This is important information that should be included. Here is a reference: http://www.ornithopter.net/history_e.html 01infamous10 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you specify where? Helicopter is mentioned at least 3 times. -- Jodon | Talk 22:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I question the use of the word helicopter at all in the article about me. While it is flattering, it appears to me to be unjustified and the very mention of it adds undue prominence to my contribution in that field. The word "helicopter" was coined in 1861, 342 years after my death. Initially, the helical screw, adapted from the Archimedian screw, was designed to reduce drag falling from heights, NOT to create lift, thus in much the same way sycamore seeds fall to the ground. As I modified the surface area, in later drawings, the idea was then to create lift by increasing the speed of the rotation using coiled springs. This of course would cause its pilot to spin, rather than remain fixed, a problem I never successfully resolved. Other designs on this appear to be lost. Oh Francesco, your son was even more incorrigible than Salai! The use of the word helicopter refers primarily to the spinning rotary mechanism using blades to create lift, which was not properly applied until the advent of the internal combustion engine. The word could be a portmanteau of "helical ornithopter" which would thus be a misnomer since ornithopters primarily employ flapping mechanisms to achieve lift, rather than rotation. I will invite comment before making any changes to the article myself. Leonardo da Vinci^Talk 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The ornithopter and the helical screw thing are presumably two different objects, being designed to flap. Leonardo da Vinci, can I suggest that you fix it in whatever way you see fit. I am sure you can reference whatever change you make. Three mentions of "helicopter" is definitely overkill. P.S. I am so glad to know you are still around..... Amandajm (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Leonardo da Vinci: We can't just take your word for it, and you really should read our guideline on conflict of interest. Unless you're just pretending and are really this Leonardo instead. Rivertorch (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Leonardo da Vinci has covered himself by "disclosure of interests", see guideline on conflict of interest. As long as Leonardo here can produce some up-to-date reference (and I'm pretty sure he can) then he ought not be blocked from editing this page. Of course, he cannot quote himself on this issue. Do you think they get scientific journals, wherever he is now? (I refuse to go the Elixir of Life direction! He never was a very good chemist.....) Amandajm (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Best if he got a faculty post somewhere and published in a peer-reviewed journal. In case he's off painting something, here's a source[6] that should suffice for adding the word "ornithopter". I think the third instance of "helicopter" is okay, since it says "resembling", but how about the second instance? (The first is in the lede.) We've got a book source (not well cited) that Google Books doesn't show enough of to be helpful.[7] (It's enough to verify the author uses the word, but the full context is hard to determine.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's be daring and forget the flaps and whirls altogether! Amandajm (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure . . . the subtleties of aeronautic design are above my pay grade. In any event, the article still doesn't use the word "ornithopter". If you can devise a clever way to insert it, then we can close this request with a pretty green check mark. (I'll give it a try if you don't, but probably not till tomorrow.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

All done, including a link to ornithopter. I'm glad this was pointed out. Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Me too. Thanks to you, to Jodon1971, and to the Old Master himself. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Me three. Thanks for tackling this, I was going to go down that route anyway. If I might just make another observation, there's still a little imbalance problem - Hang glider is now mentioned twice in this article, but Leonardo is not mentioned at all in the hang glider article; and ornithopter is mentioned once in this article, but Leonardo is mentioned 3 times in the ornithopter article. I think the mention/references in the linked articles are more consistent with reality than the mention of them here, and I've no references or reason to believe Leonardo had any designs of a hang glider, I do however have numerous books myself on his inventions, and ornithopters feature prominently in them. I would suggest removing hang glider altogether.

Oh, and I'm afraid I have to agree with the conflict of interest problem above, sorry Mr. da Vinci. Maybe if he restricted his edits to the talk page instead of the article page that would be acceptable? I wouldn't want to scare the Old Master off. -- Jodon | Talk 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a picture of the V&A model of his hang glider in the Article about his science and inventions. I don't want to be fussed about it. Why don't you insert a suitable reference to Leonardo in the hang glider page. You could even put the photo if there's room. Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, that model is a modern adaptation rather than an accurate representation of one of his drawings. The building of models is all part of a popularisation of his ideas. Where is the drawing used as a blueprint for that model? If it was taken from the other drawing on that page, it is not a "hang glider", but is designed to "flap" its wings, in the manner of a bat, therefore it is yet again another ornithopter (which uses "beating" of wings as Leonardo put it), of which Leonardo made hundreds of drawings, and he made none of rigid fixed-wing mechanisms, bar possibly one, which I mention below, or perhaps you can point me to some sources? He may eventually have realised that man has not enough muscle power to either create thrust or maintain lift by beating wings, and may indeed have intended to go along the route of a hang glider, but from what he left us in notebooks there is no evidence to support that he "conceptualised a hang glider" as mentioned in this article. There is one drawing here of what is interpreted as a "glider", but it looks more like a kite, and there's only an ambiguous indication it was ever designed to carry the full weight of a man, unlike in Leonardo's hundreds of other drawings of ornithopters, which clearly show men operating the machines. The hang glider article should remain as is, but undue weight exists here now. -- Jodon | Talk 15:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jodon, you may well be right about the misinterpretation of a drawing in the model of the object. Can you check this out, and fix it in whatever way you deem necessary? It would be good to get it right. I am not sufficiently familiar with the individual drawings of the flying machines.

One of the problems with Leonardo's "inventions" is that he often didn't bother to draw the obvious. Basic things like gears, levers etc are often omitted. When people (frequently technical students) try to recreate them, they run into problems. Amandajm (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "fix it"? If you mean reconcile that model with a drawing that supports its design, then I'm pretty sure no such drawing exists. My initial searches on the internet have come up with nothing, and none of the books I have on his notebooks or inventions show such a drawing. Unless someone makes it appear magically out of thin air, you have to assume such a drawing does not exist, and therefore the model's construction is misrepresented. In the meantime, even if it is "fixed" eventually, can we P-P-PPLEEEAASE remove any hang glider mention in this article until then? Did I say please? -- Jodon | Talk 19:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jodon | Talk, you are a signed-in editor! What I mean is, fix anything you like! If you want to remove "hang-glider", then do so, citing "Talk-page" in your edit summary. If you can't find a pic that totally reconciles that non-flapping thingy in the V@A, then write a caption indicating that it's "loosely based on his concepts" or something like that. Those pictures can't be presented as accurate representations of Leonardo's designs.

Just go from the talk page to the major page. Flap! Bang! Wham! If somebody doesn't like it, then they'll whine, but it's not as if you haven't looked into the subject and discussed it! Amandajm (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Amandajm. This a highly sensitive article, as you know, being probably its most prolific editor. I didn't want to make any edits myself without gaining consensus first, just in case somebody did "whine" about it. I hate getting involved in edit wars, especially when I know I'm right about something and other editors wrongfully assume bad faith on my part. Its already happened on this article before when I tried to remove a dubiously sourced claim, but other editors ignored my legitimate request and kept reverting my edits. But yes, it has been sufficiently discussed here so I will make the changes. Crash! Bang! Wallop! -- Jodon | Talk 06:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft

Note the use of the word "conceptualised". There is no statement that he "invented" aircraft. It is without doubt that he conceptualised them. Please just leave it at that. Amandajm (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Amandajm. We can leave it at "Flying machines" which is probably better, and no link is also good. If you're trying to engage the average reader, then using the word "aircraft" will conjure up for people (correctly) the modern and most widespread aircraft i.e. turbine, propeller or jet propulsion using fixed-wing designs, not to mention hot air balloons and microlites, none of which was even "conceived" of or "conceptualised" during Leonardo's lifetime. And lastly, ornithopters may not be considered true aircraft in the sense that they don't actually work (how many ornithopters do you see flying around airports?)!!!! -- Jodon | Talk 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are happy!

I have just been taking a look at the viewer counts for this article: Generally around 15000 per day during school terms (Northern hemisphere), 9000 per day in the holidays. A high use day is 22,000-24,000 with the odd peak at 48,000, presumably after some significant programme had been shown on TV.

What I cannot account for is the extraordinary event of 30 September 2008 (usual use of 16,000 once school returned). On that day the article was viewed by an unprecedented 285,617 people. What happened that day?

Did they show the Da Vinci Code on TV for the first time?

Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Probably! Actually I think people mistook him for Leonardo DiCaprio, on that day it was announced that he and Kate Winslet (from Titanic) would be reunited together in another film! What a cultured world we are! Ha ha! By the way how do you check those viewer stats?-- Jodon | Talk 10:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci gets more hits than Leonardo DiCaprio, more than Harry Potter and just slightly fewer than Justin Beiber. Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well that would explain it. And you were asking about a particular date. Before researching hits, people have expectations, right? So they type in "Leonardo" in Google on that day expecting to get search results about their favourite actor, and accidently click on a man whose greatness far exceeds that actor, who also happens to be higher up in Google search results, but someone whom they are not interested in, but they don't realise this until afterwards So they leave the Wikipedia page, disgruntled, and type in the full spelling in Google then. If you have a better explanation, lets hear it. But yes it is disturbing to think more people want to learn about Justin BeeBop more than they do Leonardo da Vinci. -- Jodon | Talk 13:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Holy Mother of the Divine. Here I am discussing Justin BlubBlub under a section about using "aircraft" in a Leonardo article! Could that BE more off topic?!? -- Jodon | Talk 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

His date of birth

According the footnote about his date and time of birth it says:

'His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by Angela Ottino della Chiesa in Leonardo da Vinci, and Reynal & Co., Leonardo da Vinci (William Morrow and Company, 1956): "A grandson of mine was born April 15, Saturday, three hours into the night". The date was recorded in the Julian calendar; as it was Florentine time and sunset was 6:40 pm, three hours after sunset would be sometime around 9:40 pm which was still April 14 by modern reckoning. The conversion to the New Style calendar adds nine days; hence Leonardo was born April 23 according to the modern calendar.'

According to http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ then according to the Gregorian calendar his date of birth should be April 24, 1452. Not April 23, 1452.

So we have a problem regarding his date that needs to be resolved. Is it April 23 or April 24, 1452?Chandraputra (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Making me a day older or younger is of no consequence to someone who is over 500 years old. I wouldn't burden myself with such matters. Leonardo da Vinci^Talk 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of a man in red chalk (Leonardo)

The subject of this drawing was identified as Leonardo, in the 19th century. However it remains unknown whether it really is Leonardo or not, and the identification of the drawing as a self-portrait has come under criticism, consistently. It is frequently suggested that the person is too old, and that it might represent either his father or his uncle.

The drawing that is presumed to be by Leonardo's pupil Melzi has not come under the same criticism. It is universally accepted as being a portrait of Leonardo.

The change was made because I frequently have to fend off critics of the "Portrait of a man in red chalk". Look at the article and talk page. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a lengthy discussion on the subject. Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 4#Image of Leonardo, the alleged "self-portrait". Amandajm (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re wax model of horse

Because this is the broad article it doesn't deal with every work that Leonardo is known to have created, and it leaves out all the recent attributions, of which there are a great many, some of which are simply nonsense. If we included the horse, on Pedretti's opinion alone, then there are half a dozen more works that Pedretti has at one time or another been quoted as saying were by Leonardo. Leonardo is the the name that jumps to mind, whenever a work of that period is discovered (unless it is a marble sculpture, and then it is attributed to Michelangelo, regardless of how ghastly and incompetent it might be.) The article also does not attempt to deal in any detail with speculation as to Leonardo's religious beliefs, sexual orientation, nationality of his mother or all those other things that are dealt with elsewhere. Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There is no phonosyntactic strengthening, after "da", in "da Vinci". No Italian would even think such a pronunciation is even an option, and say: "davvìnci". It's absurd.

Not Gattemelata but Gattamelata

Could you please change "Donatello's Gattemelata" into "Donatello's Gattamelata"? Vincenzo Cena, Rome 87.241.12.21 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Mindmatrix 16:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Vegeterian myth

De vinci is not a vegeterian http://arthistory.about.com/od/leonardo/a/Was-Leonardo-A-Vegetarian.htm --Dorpwnz (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)