Talk:Michelangelo

--...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Michelangelo and the category of Italian Roman Catholics

See my discussion in the category itself. I vote for the category to be deleted or sharpened to befit a century in which there was a diversity of religious affiliations among Italians. To say "Michelangelo or Bernini was a Italian Roman Catholic" to me is like saying "dogs have tails". Of course, there are dogs that have no tails, but they are the exception. Our categories should address the non-obvious and non-overwhelmingly true. Ninety-nine percent of the ethnically Italian persons (I would argue that the Jews of that century in Rome did not consider themselves ethnically Italian) in Rome in the 16th century were Roman Catholic (perhaps, or else or that we can know of). Anyway, argue amongst yourselves.CARAVAGGISTI 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We truly don't need that category. Further, my strong opinion is that, if he lived now, michelangelo wouldn't surely be Catholic. --Attilios 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I am not a part of it, I'm sure there exists a contingent of people who are unaware of the Catholicity of Italian persons during the 16th and 17th centuries. A factor contributing to this ignorance seems to me a certain agnostic antiseptic which modern historians tend to pour over the sincere religiosity of the artistic and intellectual luminaries of that period. Such agnostic revisionism needs to be addressed, otherwise we risk redefining and recreating history to fit into our distinctively modern, secular categories. Attilios' comment does a good job of showing the tendency of this sort of revisionism: he contends that if Michelangelo were alive today, he "wouldn't surely be Catholic." By saying this he misses the very obvious point that if Michelangelo were alive today, he wouldn't even be Michelangelo. -Schlier22 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Schlier22: You have an agenda: To address the agnostic revisionism needs that redefines and recreates history to fit into our distinctively modern, secular categories. You say so yourself. That may be laudable, worthy, honest, etc. but does NOT belong in an encyclopedia, and qualifies the category for deletion. See What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Michelangelo had two legs, ten fingers, two ears, two knees, hair on his scalp, etc. - all this is true. All this is factual. But "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Again, I challenged you to find me a list of Italians living in Rome in 1500-1700, who were not Roman Catholic or ex-roman catholics(again, other than the Jewish community, Greek orthodox monks, or muslim slaves- who might not fit Italian ethnicity at the time).CARAVAGGISTI 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain I am working within Wikipedia guidelines for deleting the link to this category Category:Italian Roman CatholicsCARAVAGGISTI 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Caravaggisti: Yes, I do have an agenda: to disseminate the truth about historical persons. But this agenda is completely in harmony with the encyclopedic intentions of wikipedia.org, which means there is nothing wrong with my having it. You continue to challenge me to give you examples of Italians living in Rome from 1500-1700 who were not Roman Catholics. But this challenge is nonsensical, since it is clearly the case that the category Italian Roman Catholics encompasses Italian Roman Catholics in general, not just Italian Roman Catholics who reside(d) in Rome, and not just Italian Roman Catholics who lived between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Thus, while I am working within the wikipedia guidelines for categorization, you, by pushing for the deletion of the Italian Roman Catholics category, are not working within the wikipedia guidelines for category deletion. As I have made abundantly clear, I have no agenda not sanctioned by wikipedia itself. You, however, do, because you are attempting to distort the truth about historical persons by whitewashing their religious affiliation. -Schlier22 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Schlier22 You fail to address the following points: Your stated agenda is NOT to disseminate the truth.... You yourself stated in the posting above that you wish : To address the agnostic revisionism needs that redefines and recreates history to fit into our distinctively modern, secular categories. Second of all, please tell me why this truth or category is more worthy or significant than say Category:Persons with two legs etc.

Second the reason I focus on Rome in the 16th and 17th century, is that the two people that we are arguing about lived much of their lives there and then. If you are unable to find anyone who does not fit into your category; that is, if the category includes everyone or nearly everyone then and there, then it is meaningless, which it is. In the Italy of today, in the Rome of today, an argument could be made to define individuals according to this category; there are many Italian non-Roman Catholics today. In 16th century Tuscany, the Papal state, The Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and Lombardy -to mention a few- of the 16th century, there were no openly non-catholic ethnic Italians (or at least not for long). I do not know the exact history of Protestant toleration in each Italian state, but I assure you that it was not tolerated in the Rome or Florence of Michelangelo and Bernini.

I urge you to seek others to support your cause with cogent arguments. Lacking either others to support you or cogent arguments, I stand my ground. The category Italian Roman Catholics is meaningless if it is meant to include Michelangelo and Bernini. I am also going to now expand my net of exclusion to others in this category for whom this category is meaningless. CARAVAGGISTI 04:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, very interesting! Now, why, Attilios, do you say that Michelangelo wouldn't have been Catholic if he had been alive today (and if we presume that by some chance he was still Michelangelo?) Do you recognize Protestant tendencies in his work? Or what?

I can see points on both sides.

• He lived in Rome. He breathed air. He was Catholic. Therefore Category can go.
• Many people are totally ignorant of the significance of Roman Catholicism in Italy, or the significance of Church in general in the societies that preceded our own. One needs to understand this matter in order to understand the life of almost anyone from a previous century. If the Historic person was "not" catholic, then what? Therefore category stays.
• In the case of many/all of these artists, the Church was highly significant to their careers. But whether the had personal faith or not is another matter. In the case of Leonardo, we really have no idea. He was awfully silent about the matter, unless he was criticizing specifically the conduct within a monastary. With Michelangelo, there is good reason to think that it was he who devised the scheme of paintings for the ceiling. And very clever it is too. Theologically speaking.

--Amandajm 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the speculation, interesting as it can be, of what Michelangelo's faith would be today, is not an encyclopedic fact. It is not ascertainable. The two issues here are: 1) Is this category part of one editor's agenda? That would violate Wikipedia policy. 2) Is this a relevant fact that needs to be included in one person's biography? I say no. If you want to create an entry that says, the role of Roman Catholicism in the life of Italians, or the role of Catholicism in Italy, and therein mention the immensely powerful role of the church in Italian history, be my guest. My challenge to including this in this biography, is that, if so, then why not include it in the biographies of all Italians that were catholic. Why is the category of Roman Catholic used for Bernini, Leonardo, Michelangelo and handfuls of other prominent artists, but not for Domenico Fiasella, Giovanna Garzoni, nearly all the trainees of the school of Carlo Maratta, the condottieri of Venice, aw - every Italian who breathed air in those centuries. If not, then the category is "Italian Roman Catholics I am proud of". To paraphrase a quote from the Eastern block about the West during the cold war: "In the West, everything goes, and nothing matters; under communism, nothing goes, and everything matters". An encyclopedia need categories that matter something, if not, everything goes in them.

Most of all, we should, as long as morally responsible, to avoid agendas.CARAVAGGISTI 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to please all parties (myself included), I've decided to categorize Michelangelo as a "Roman Catholic," since he was in fact a Roman Catholic. In so doing I allay the specific grievance of Caravaggisti, who thought the assignment of "Italian Roman Catholic" to Michelangelo a redundancy.--Schlier22 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is back again posting categories of Roman Catholic to artists such as Michelangelo and Bernini. I have discussed my objections above. This is unnecessary.CARAVAGGISTI 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary? And a more obvious question: Why ought categories be confined to what is considered "necessary"? I could just as well remove the categories "Renaissance artists", "Italian painters," and "Italian sculptors" from Michelangelo's profile on the grounds that they are "unnecessary." Secondly, someone is not "again posting categories of "Roman Catholic" to artists such as Michelangelo and Bernini," because before, persons were posting categories of "Italian Roman Catholic" (not "Roman Catholic") to such profiles. In any case, your argument to preclude this category from Michelangelo's profile is a poor one, and in fact involves you in a double-standard.--Schlier22 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not a category People with hair or Men with beard or noses with two nostrils. It is unnecessary because it is evident from even a cursory reading of the text that someone who builds to St. Peter's Basilica, befriends Pope Julius II, whose most famous work is the frescoed ceiling of the site for papal elections, and whose most famous sculptures in the center of Roman Catholicism is the Pieta, would be Catholic. An encyclopedia should be informative of relevance. I am against this because it was and still is your non-neutral agenda. It is unnecessary to argue this again.CARAVAGGISTI 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"The paintings that Michaelangelo had created, along with the artwork can all be summarized into what his entire life was brought up around." -j.c. This is a true statement according to written documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.177.40 (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Article locked - need help

Could someone who has permission add the following entry to the "Further reading" section, next to the current Irving Stone entry for The Agony and the Ecstasy, thanks -- 71.191.36.194 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Irving Stone. I, Michelangelo, Sculptor. 1962. Michelangelo's translated letters.

As soon as Dumbot removed a protection template from a non-protected page, the vandalism started up again immediately. Can we get semi-protection so people can do more useful edits?--Wetman 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, and not a moment too soon, thanks to AndonicO. JNW 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Name 2

The name Buonarroti is very often misspelled Buonarotti, even in this very article, in the name of Michelangelo's father "Lodovico di Leonardo di Buonarotti di Simoni". I suppose that both father and son used the same spelling "Buonarroti". If this is true, than the article should be corrected.

I wonder why the name of the father contains three "di". Italian names usually have one "di" referring to the place of origin (birth). Why then is "di" in Michelangelo's name standing before the patronymic Lodovico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.171.26 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1700's

there is a reference on this page to a time period when Michelangelo disappered in France, and it states that it was the 1700's. Is this a reference to the time period, or is there another use for the term that I am missing?

Supercam (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It says the statue of Hercules he sculpted went missing; not Michelangelo himself. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New footer

I'm working on a footer for Michelangelo. So far this is what I have (below). Let me know what you think and feel free to help make it better. Remember (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Last Judgment

The treatment of this piece is sorely lacking. It is enormously significant and there is not one mention of it. The article should be unlocked and The last Judgement, His Pieta and His Moses with Horns should not be obsfucated. DavoudMSA (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency in dates: In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtine_Chapel it says “He painted the Last Judgment over the altar, between 1535 and 1541”. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo it says "Michelangelo labored on the project from 1534 to October 1541." I am new to this, I just hope someone can fix it. --Augustus Polancus (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Snow sculpture?

The text says: "He could again enter the court on January 20, 1494, Piero de Medici commissioned a snow statue from him.". I want to verify this or correct it, but I am at a loss as to what is actually meant. Myrvin (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Michelangelo basically made a snowman. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Is there a photograph? Perhaps the text could say, "He re-entered the court on January 20, 1494, when, after a great deal of snow had fallen, the young Piero de Medici commissioned a snow statue from him.". Myrvin (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Myrvin (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A photo? Hmm... I don't believe so... -- VegitaU (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could an established Wikipedia user please correct this? Re: His final artwork

Michelangelo's final attested artwork is his Rondanini Pieta--for which there is evidence that he worked on it within the final six or so days of his life--but this Wikipedia entry on Michelangelo mentions the St. Peter's drawing found in 2007 and implies that this drawing was his final work. The drawing, however, is reportedly dated 1563, the year before his death. Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/07/art.artnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.167.80 (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michelangelo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has failed to meet the Good Article criteria at this time because there are too many sections that are unreferenced. Please add the appropriate references to these sections, then renominate the article again. Gary King (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Michelangelo#Architectural_work

I've noticed that the image of Michelangelo's tomb image on Michelangelo#Architectural_work has a bit of a low exposure so I've taken the liberty to create a few possible alternatives. Would appreciate some outside perspective on which one you believe is best. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Original
• 
  Initial cleanup
• 
  Crop+touchup
• 
  Extra curves
• 
  Additional color correction (by Jossi)

• Comment. The "Extra curves" one is stunning! Great work! Banjeboi 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• 2 or 4 It is a toss up. I like the depth of picture number 2 gives, but the vibrant colours of number 4 are also nice. Narson (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I like #3 myself. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm fond of #4. —Animum (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• v 4 looks great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Check also v5, with additional color correction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to steal my thunder? :D - v5 is a wee too colorful for me personally but I'll wait for community input.

p.s. you still need to fix copyright and past versions input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s.2. thanks for participating. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite fond of v4 "Extra Curves". Great job to all involved. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Closing this one: Result - version 4. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like #4 better because the painting above the bust looks more vivid to me. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like #4 too because its not too much touchup and not too little too.Bolinda (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)B
• Wierd. I tried to fix the article but I can't open the edit screen for some reason. Is this true for others? If somebody can fix it, there's some wierd big bold red words under early life that I can't get out of it.Bolinda (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)B