Talk:Michelangelo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Asperger syndrome

Could Michelangelo have had Asperger syndrome? Ioan James suggests this in his book 'Asperger's syndrome and high achievement:Some Remarkable People' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


I watched the BBC documentary "The Divine Michelangelo", which describes him as an engineer - of his engineering work of transporting pieces of marble and finished sculpture (e.g. for the giant David, which wasn't easy at all); also his scaffolding made to help him paint the Sistine ceiling. May I suggest that adding "Engineer" under his name? (As Leonardo is classified as one, but I've heard none of Da Vinci's designs actually worked, practically) Visionsofthelastdays 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Michelangelo in Dublin?

I've never heard of Temptations of St. hi

and the Virgin and Child with the young Saint John the Baptist and Angels (The Manchester Madonna), referred to as "Holy Family with Young St. John (now in Dublin)" is in the National Gallery, London

edited it for those reasons


There's some confusion here. They are two different paintings. The Manchester Madonna, generally attributed to Michelangelo, is in the National Gallery in London. The painting referred to as being in Dublin is of the same subject. It was once attributed to Michelangelo but is now firmly attributed to Granacci.


Michelangelo, The Artist

I realize to this day that a person, of any profession, whether due to his greatness or meakness, will be discussed like a specie being dissected.

Issues other than his expertise are put into the limelight for sensationalism. Besides, this is what feeds most readers and viewers interest. These are the things that they take pleasure in.

But Michelangelo is beyond that and should be. Not only him. In fact, people who went down our histories should be given the due respect for their contribution to our culture and civilization. And for Michelangelo, it is his artistry that should be undoubtedly discussed - the remembrance, the honor he has given to the Arts as a medium of recording our history. Who would have thought of immortalizing Mary and Christ throught The Pieta? No one needs to be a Christian. Simply an artist will be mesmerized by this work of art.

As a child, I would stare, hypnotized, my eyes following every line leading me from one detail to another. And even to this age, I still look in awe and admiration like I have never seen it before.

If Micheangelo carved only one piece of stone in his life and the only thing he carved was The Pieta, he would have still gone down our history whether anonymously or well-known. And if he painted only one wall, one ceiling, he would have still made it through history as one of the truest artist of our race. - - (Jonarvs 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

File:325px-Michelangelo Petersdom Pieta.jpg

The Pieta by Michelangelo
Generally the work of art he is known for including the fresco paintings in the Sistine Chapel.

Michelangelo's sexuality

Having no proof, evidently, of eventual Michelangelo's ideas on sexuality, why remove that some aspects of fig-leaf-campaign could likely have created an "emphatised" suspect on him (as well as for other artists)? This would have the same probability to be true of an alleged (proofs?) non-practised bisexuality. We are talking about "fame", not self-description or objectively confirmed facts. Maybe not a legend, still it's not anything certain. Where is the truth? I'd imagine it could be more objective to have the two hypothesis toghether.

The context in which the removed statement was in, was highly suggestive that the controversy surrounding Michelangelo's sexuality might wholly be from external overreaction to his artwork. The statement is also pure conjecture and does not logically follow the content of the previous statement. Without explanation the statement sounds like a guess. Yes, this might be true; however such a statement is exceptionally difficult to test whether it is either true or not true. Many things might be the origin of the theory (not legend) that Michelangelo was at least to some degree homosexual. The only thing we can be sure of, is that he did romantically harass two men and wrote sonnets about them using masculine pronouns. His own writing is the most probable origin of the "legend" -- not some external campaign.
However, this is not to say that controversy surrounding his artwork (especially his male nudes) hasn't played a significant role. I therefore, would not object to the inclusion of something similiar to your statement into the article -- that "aspects of the fig-leaf-campaign could likely have created an 'emphasized' aura of suspicion." Your statement is rather different than the one removed (and far more accurate, I might add). --User:maveric149
Censorship always followed Michelangelo, once described as "inventor delle porcherie" (inventor of obscenities, in a sense that in italian sounds like as if he had also created the form of... indecent organs). This might also be the origin of the legend that Michelangelo was homosexual.

English is not my native language and I sincerely apologise but I do need others' help to decipher my chaotic sentences and correct my many mistakes. Also, resulting sense may not consequently come out as I expected, as demonstrated right above (in italian leggenda-legend has also a more generical, "lighter" meaning).

Another difficulty is that different cultures obviously produce a different approach to the same arguments, as what is more relevant on one side might be less on the other side, and viceversa. In this case, in Italy we might be more concerned about the ways by which the fig-leaf-campaign was run, rather than about the artist's privacy, if it doesn't affect his work. I therefore had no "preference" in describing Michelangelo as a bisexual or in denying he was, my attention went instead first to the risk of a false information eventually produced by Carafa and associates as an accessory irritating form of damage. This is why (or happened because) I remembered more vividly fig leaves and forgot sonnets (which cause this matter to be relevant as a reason for some of his works).

General idea here around is that M. had a woman, a famous one, and maybe he had other kinds of experiences, too, but... this had been said by some "priests"; we know it was said, we don't know it as an objective fact (even if it was). Well before that, we know (and somehow we are proud) he had a really enchanting art. The fact that some priests (not the generality of them) tried to put the artist in a ludicrous situation using this sort of arguments, was merely ridiculous itself, and only resulted in a general deeper disesteem of some pragmatical aspects and methods of temporal power. Rome is constitutionally a deeply tolerant town, as most of the rest of Italy (just a few months ago a minister of previous government publicly declared his bisexuality without any scandal and any need of resigning - and we commonly find it's his business).

No problem, this was obviously a cultural misunderstanding. It's just that here in the 'States homo and bisexuality are touchy issues and anything written about famous people and their sexuality has to be written in a very precise and accurate way. For example, many Christain conservatives totally deny that M. was in any way bi or homosexual and many gay rights proponents (which I have to admit I am one) say that he definitely was. Come to think of it, I should read that part of the article again and make it more NPOV to remove my own bias. --User:maveric149

BTW, Vittoria Colonna was a married woman (wife of Marquis of Pescara), famous for her quite certain relationship with Michelangelo, and a poet.

Already had planned on including this in the article -- just ran out of time to find the info and include it today. User:maveric149
Having made a quick search on google, I found that many sites report her name in the masculine form, by mistake or confusion with the real Vittorio Colonna. No doubts you were going to include it. :-)

P.S. Next time, remember to Be bold in updating pages. If you see something that needs to be changed, then check your facts and then change it. If you feel like you need to explain a significant change, so that I, or anybody else for that matter, doesn't quickly undo what you have done, then do so on the Talk page. Even though I have done a great deal of work on this article, it is no more mine than it is yours. User:maveric149

In this case, not being particularly fond in this matter, I just required a confirmation of my beliefs and asked you, that certainly know more than me on that subject, presuming you had something more to add.
This is my only limit in being bold, together with a bit of prudence (yes, I have some!) in expressing in what is a foreign language to me. :-)

Thank you for your patience. Gianfranco.

Gianfranco, for a non-native speaker of English, you most certainly write a great deal better than most Americans. :) I still need to set aside some time to research M.'s other amours and include the most significant ones in the article. --User:maveric149

frankly, I find the "LGBT" categories offensive. Sure, we have Category:People with asteroids named after them, so why not categories of sexual orientation. But only if their sexuality is a public matter, i.e. if they are gay activists or something. I readily believe that Michelangelo was bisexual, and I have no problem with the article text. But categories are more sensitive, since poor Michelangelo will appear listed without comment. Anyway, I'm removing Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people for now, since that's a supercategory of Category:LGBT artists anyway. But I'm unhappy with that too, for the reasons just stated. These sexuality categories should be restricted to contemporary people who have actually declared they are "LBGT", or historical figures who were found out and were declared by some official body to be "sodomites". Otherwise, we are as it were postumously condemning Michelangelo of what was certainly not looked upon lightly in his time. We may as well have Category:Gluttons and Category:Procrastinators. dab () 19:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we only named people who declared themselves as LBGT in that category, it would be misleading. The category would have to be People who have declared to be LBGT.
What do you mean "poor Michelangelo"? He's listed in the category on equal footing with everyone else.
Are you afraid to dishonor Michelangelo by listing him as LBGT?
Why should only contemporary people who declared themselves LBGT or those declared to be sodomites be listed? I hardly think listing Michangelo as bisexual is condemning him in anyway. And how is this "condemnation" OK if they were "recognized" by historical figures? -- Rmrfstar 18:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "offensive" merry-go-round cannot be escaped: I am sure someone in the universe will be offended by your attitude, comments and actions - but not me. I do think that your comparisons suggest straw man tactics and detract from the validity of your argument. A better comparison would be with a category Category:Blonds. By the way, I too am frustrated by the lgbt mania - I find it heavy handed and unesthetic. On the other hand I do not think it is appropriate to allow the persona of MB to be kidnapped by militants who want to prop up compulsory heterosexuality. The article speaks eloquently enough to the contrary, and I think it is not only appropriate to lump him with the multitudes who were free in their love, but necessary as counterweight to the climate of propaganda we live in, which would distort his life. Ideally, there would be nothing to underline, he was who he was and that is enough. Maybe we should create another category, Category:Heterosexuals for those few artists who would actually qualify. Haiduc 00:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

who belongs in lbgt is of course not to be discussed on this talk page. My point is that homosexuality in his time would very much have dishonoured MB, even if it does not dishonour him today, depending on the beholder. In any case, the category accuses MB of what, in his time was a serious crime. (why the lumping together, btw? what does make you 'b', exactly, one drunken teenage orgy, or does there need to be a pattern? and what does 't' have to do with anything? what precludes a category Category:Eunuchs, polygamists, travelling tinkers and politicians?). Denouncing people, historical or not, to be lbgt is a "forced coming out", which is condemned by gay rights activists. I, in any case, if I was a public character, independent of my sexuality, would be appalled to find myself categorized by something as private, and irrelevant for my acheivments, as my sexuality. dab () 14:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, the article states matter-of-factly that MV "slept with" his models. What about the hypotheses above that the "fig-leaf campaign has emphasized suspicion"? Are the actual homosexual acts (essentially) undisputed (I don't know, and the article would have me believe so, but the talk page suggests otherwise). If writing homoerotic sonnets is enough to have you "declared" lbgt and categorized, why isn't William Shakespeare lbgt'd on equal grounds? dab () 15:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By this standard we would not reveal the activism of samizdat authors under the Soviet regime since their activities were illegal in their time, and we would abstain from divulging the identities of spies revealed as such elsewhere (such as Guy Burgess ande so many other cold war personages), and we wouold refrain from discussing the details of the lives of people active in the French resistance movement during WW II . . . hey, these were illegal activities, heinous crimes in their day. Come on! The part about "slept" comes from a critical text, and Shakespeare is discussed in these terms though we have far less evidence about his actual relationships. Haiduc 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hello? I was referring to categorization, exclusively. Of course all sorts of things can be discussed in articles. Categorization is more delicate, since it is by its nature without comment. So, no, I wouldn't recommend a Category:Suspected spies. How about Category:People accused of being the antichrist, then? The "slept with" comment was critical of the article's style. The "forced coming out" commentary was referring to categorization, exclusively. Yes, the discussion about Shakespeare\s and Michelangelo's respective sexualities belongs in the article, since they (the discussions, not necessarily their subject matters) are notable. Not everything notable deserves its own category, however. dab () 28 June 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Regarding the following line: "The sculptor loved a great many youths, many of whom posed for him and likewise slept with him." Do we know this to be the case? In all my research on Michelangelo I've never come across anything to suggest Michelangelo had any sexual relations. If there is evidence for a sex life I'd be curious to see it, and if not that statement may want to be qualified.

Edit: I removed the statement "and likewise slept with him" from the section, since as far as I am aware there is no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, I added the qualifier that Tommaso dei Cavalieri was the artist's greatest "male" love, since there is a case to be made that his affections for Vittoria Colonna were just as strong (if not stronger). David 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I would suggest some copy-editing on the list of works in the opening paragraph; "The Martyrdom of St. Peter" and "The Conversion of St. Paul" are not that well known, ditto the "Rachel", "Leah" and Medici family members. I don't think they belong in the opening, although obviously listing them below would be good. Not sure about the Bacchus, Moses, etc - they are good, but would not, I think, generate the same instant and widespread recognition of the Pieta and David. I think I already did enough, though, so I'll stop at what I did for now!
(And I hope y'all don't object to my describing the Sistine ceiling as "stupendous" - it certainly stupefies me!) -- Noel 04:23, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


OK, so here's something I just noticed. Why is Michelangelo's entry under "Michaelangelo Buonarotti", not "Michaelangelo"? Looking in Google, for English pages, I find:

"Michaelangelo Buonarotti" - 16,900
"Michaelangelo" AND "Art*" NOT "Buonarotti" 138,000

I added the "Art*" to the second search to try and get rid of the pages that were some other Michelangelo - there seem to be a lot: a search for "Michaelangelo" NOT "Buonarotti" alone turns up 195,000, with the first page of results including a hotel, a journalist, an executive search firm, a tenor, a movie director, and some guy called "Michelangelo".

Anyway... it seems like he's much better known as Michelangelo, not "Michaelangelo Buonarotti". So why is the page not under "Michelangelo"? Enquiring minds, and all that....

Noel 07:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Michelangelo" redirects to this page. Theanthrope 23:27, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I assume this is because the man's name _is_ Michelangelo Buonarotti. Further, the less restricted your query is the more results you'll get.

"Michelangelo Buonarotti" (3,690 hits)
Michelangelo Buonarotti (4,700 hits)
Michelangelo -Buonarotti (447,000 hits)
Michelangelo (552,000 hits)

This works for all Google searches:

"Leonardo da Vinci" (401,000 hits)
Leonardo da Vinci (421,000 hits)
Leonardo -da -Vinci (1,160,000 hits)
Leonardo (2,590,000 hits)

Note: as far as I know NOT and AND are not used in Google. By default the items are all AND searched and the NOT operator is written as a hyphen.

Sven 00:54, 26 Oct 2003 (GMT+01:00)

The apparent misspelling "Michelagnolo" appears twice in the text (in boldface, yet!). Is this a correct variant used when writing out the whole name, or is it a typo?

The name "Michelagnolo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni" (only 75 hits on Google) may be correct, but it is NOT mentioned in the most comprehensive resources on Michelangelo. The great artist may be called Michelangelo or Michelangelo Buonarroti, but NEVER Buonarroti.
Rienzo 04:31, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


No matter how much someone may prefer that images be on the upper right, for consistency, any visually literate person can see, just with an edit and a "preview" that an image that "turns its back" on the page doesn't work. Wetman 06:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Furtive vandalism:death date

At 20:44, 25 May 2004 Anonymous User: switched Michelangelo's death date from February to Match 1564. The little change went unnoticed until 1 December 2004, when an alert Anonymous User: noticed the "error" and fixed it for us. This kind of furtive vandalism is the most insidious corruption. Wikipedians should be alert to the possibility that there is other mischief in this user's contributions. --Wetman 14:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It could have been an honest mistake, I just found this article [1] which mentions a death date in March 1564, though they were referring to another artist, but referred to Michelangelo in the same sentence. Cfitzart 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tommaso de' Cavalieri

This is not mentioned in the article, but Tommaso de' Cavalieri did not return Michelangelo's affections. However, they remained very good friends for the rest of Michelangelo's life. Don't know if that is worth noting but I thought I would mention it.

Two statements

  • When Michelangelo grew older and older, he became less and less interested in paintings and sculptures, and started to live only for God. He was hard at work til his final illness.
  • Even today, the genitalia of 'David' in the Victoria and Albert Museum still gets covered with a stone fig leaf during royal visits. Too much leisure and not enough real-world experience, apparently. (Wetman 21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC))

The link to the sonetts is not working anymore. One (not me!) may link it to Project Gutenberg's Symonds (it's easliy found there even without a link); this should be more permanent.


This article seems to receive a lot of vandalism. Recently, there have been at least 11 vandalisms by in the past 3 days. I'm a little new to Wikipedia -- what is the usual procedure for this sort of thing? Mlouns 17:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Again vandalism, several times a week. I'm starting to think to ask an administrator to block this page. As not so much editings have been posted lately, if somebody has something to add he'll be able to ask here. Does anyone agree? Attilios 5-12-05.

Naming conventions: 'Michelangelo's Crucifix', anyone?

The convention for naming articles on sculptures by Michelangelo on Wikipedia seems rather idiosyncratic. As neither 'David' nor 'David (sculpture)' would do, I can understand why the editor who began the article decided on the title Michelangelo's David, with its wholly appropriate suggestion of 'cultural cache'. I think the formulation also works for Michelangelo's Pietà and (possibly less so) with Michelangelo's Moses, again because of their familiarity. But I doubt that Michelangelo's Bacchus or Michelangelo's Crucifix chime with recognition in as many people's minds, and Michelangelo's Pietà (Florence) is just awkward. I suggest putting Michelangelo's name in brackets after the titles of the works, so that we have 'David (Michelangelo)', 'Pietà (Michelangelo', 'Florentine Pietà (Michelangelo)' and so on. The precedent has already been set with pages on paintings by Botticelli, Raphael and others. It would mean losing 'Michelangelo's David' to a less graceful 'David (Michelangelo)' but most of the other changes would be felicitous. – Ham 17:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tommaso dei Cavalieri

The birthdate of Tommaso dei Cavalieri has recently been "adjusted" to 1509. Is that the actual date of his birth? What does Vasari say? Is this to bring the narrative into line with modern middle-class American requirements or is it based on documents? --Wetman 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked Saslow, who has 23, likewise Derek Duncan in glbtq. But the Italians seems to disagree:
  • "La lettera che apre il volume è datata fine dicembre 1532, indirizzata a Roma, e rivolta al giovanissimo messer Tomao, ovvero Tommaso de' Cavalieri."
  • Cavalieri Tommaso de (1512/14-1587),[2].
I'll check with Giovanni Dall'Orto, he might know. Haiduc 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On Michelangelo's love of masculine beauty

Material found while trawling:

Fr: <<Il a aimé la beauté physique comme on peut le faire quand on en a une connaissance merveilleuse. Il l'a tellement aimée que certaines personnes toutes sensuelles et incapables de comprendre l'amour de la beauté autrement que comme un sentiment lascif et déshonnête, y ont pris l'occasion de penser et de dire du mal de lui. Comme si Alcibiade, ce très beau jeune homme, n'avait pas été l'objet de l'amour parfaitement chaste de Socrate [...] J'ai souvent entendu Michel-Ange tenir des propos savants sur l'amour et ceux qui étaient présents s'accordaient à affirmer que ces discours sur l'amour ne sont pas différents de ce qu'on en lit chez Platon...>>

It: <<Ha eziandio amata la bellezza del corpo, come quello che ottimamente la conosce; e che non sanno intendere amor di bellezza se non lascivo e disonesto, ha pôrto cagione di pensare di dir male di lui; come se Alcibiade, giovane formosissimo, non fosse stato da Socrate castissimamente amato >>...] Il più volte ho sentito Michelagnolo ragionare e discorrere sopra l'amore; e udito poi da quelli si trovaron presenti, lui non altrimenti dell'amor parlare, di quel che appresso di Platone scritto si legge>>) Condivi A., Vita di Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1553. Cité en appendice dans Michelangelo, Bramante Editrice, Milan, 1984, p. 253. Traduction empruntée à Chastel A., <<Les ignudi de Michel-Ange>>, in Fables, Formes, Figures, vol. 1, Paris, 1978, p. 290. Haiduc 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Pronoun Trouble!

and because he had never painted frescos before he thought he would make him fail.

Could somebody parse that for me, eh? Gamahucheur 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This blurb keeps popping back. Why?

I removed this out-of-place and non-encyclopedic blurb at the end of the external links section. I noticed this has been removed times before and always popped back in. Does anybody really want to keep this?

  • Michelangelo Buonarroti was born on March 6, 1475, in the small town of Caprese, which is tucked into a fold of the Apennine Mountains in rural Tuscany. His father, Ludovico Buonarroti, was a minor Florentine official and the local governor of the small towns of Caprese and nearby Chiusi. After his six-month term of office, Ludovico moved the family back to Florence, where they owned a good-size farm in the little village of Settignano overlooking Florence. Here, and in the surrounding hills pock-marked with quarries, Michelangelo grew up and was first exposed to stone carving. Appropriately for a son whose family had noble pretensions, Michelangelo attended Latin school. But as so often happens, the boy's aspirations were different from those of his father. Michelangelo was drawn to art rather than to the world of the Florentine banker and merchant.

Marcello 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I saw that this is one of the more vandalized pages in my watchlist, with 99.999999% of vandalism coming from non-registered users. I therefore tentatively added the semi-protection markup. Let me know about my move. User:Attilio

You can't sprotect pages unless you're an admin. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I join my voice to those requesting for semi-protection. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

What a wonderfully composed, splendidly well written (Yes I can use all the peacock extremes here) introduction this article has. Congratulations to Ghirlandajo for responding to a real need! And to anyone else that may have editted it. It's so good that I looked its the writer through the entire history. Unfortunately, I worked from the earliest to the present, and I should have done it the other way round. Ghirlandajo, why did you leave it so long? --Amandajm 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Attilios!

I'm a new user. I don't know how to send messages yet. Maybe you can help me. WhaT I really want to say is that in correcting my style by simply reverting, you promptly removed the new closing paragraph and addition to the title that I had put in. My changes box said - Additions and minor.

I don't mind being advised as to appropriate style. I find it a problem when style takes precedent over content.

The problem, of which you as an experienced user are probably fully aware, is that in deleting my sub-sub-headings, you also deleted all the sub-headings from the contents box. OK?!

Please, next time you rush in, take your boots off first.

My question is, when its obvious a person is currently working on something, why don't you talk first, or isn't that the policy at Wikipedia? --Amandajm 10:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Amandajim, welcome to the Wikipedia! Generally speaking you leave messages for people by clicking on the link to their userpage, and when you're there you'll find a tab marked "discussion".
Thanks for putting so much effort into this article, but may I suggest that you consider incorporating your info into the articles David (Michelangelo), Sistine Chapel ceiling and The Last Judgment (Michelangelo)? You say you've looked through the whole edit history of this article, so you may have noticed that recently I removed 7 paragraphs (I think it was) on Michelangelo's work at the Campidoglio, on the basis that there was too much of it. I'm afraid that 9 paragraphs on the David, 8 on the Sistine ceiling and 3 on the Last Judgement are also a luxury in an article that still doesn't get many of the biographical facts about the artist right. For this article I think we should be aiming at a summary style that puts M's work in the context of his life, not an in-depth appraisal of specific works – let's keep that for the relevant sub-articles. They would really benefit from the content you've added here. HAM SaintPierre4.JPG 11:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilemma of human nature

I think maybe I'll have a go at rewording this sentence. The problem is, that this is not simply Michelangelo's opinion. He is a Catholic painter, working at the Vatican. The 'sinfulness of human nature' is a given. Because it is within a Christian context. So to the Pope, to the Church, to every Christian person who viewed these pictures there is an understanding that Man is Sinful. We are not talking about Michelangelo's opinion. We are talking about the whole foundation of Judaeo/Christian faith. It's very difficult trying to rewrite an article about a volume of work which is Christian in content, and word it so that it doesn't offend those people who don't share the Theology. Mankind's dilemma as seen here, is whether to follow the path of sin, or turn to Christ. --Amandajm 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consult the NPOV policy. As long as the content in question is put into the appropriate context, and ideas are not stated as facts, we don't have a problem. Your statement, "the sinfulness of human nature is a given", and the rest of what follows is very problematic for an encyclopedia article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand Amandajm to be saying that "the sinfulness of human nature is a given within the context of Christian thought", which I think is in general not a controversial statement. In other words, an expression of "the sinfulness of human nature" in M's work should not be interpreted as his personal opinion (nor Amandajm's, for that matter), but as the official viewpoint. -- Writtenonsand 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


I've just read through what I've written and tried to make sure that it was all in the context of the Vatican Commission/Christian Theology. I think now, in the context that it is pretty clear. I also deleted the other bit because I think it's now redundant, since I've written about that stuff at considerable length. It's really about the artwork rather than the man, IF one can possibly divide them. The point is, this sin stuff is not just Michelangelo's personal opinion. Hope you consider it's been appropriately sorted out! --Amandajm 11:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with art criticism, and it is in fact encouraged, but please keep WP:RULES in mind. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The painted Madonnas

I've changed the order. Not datewise, but certainty wise. We KNOW Michelangelo painted the Doni Tondo. There's a funny story about Agnolo and his whinging wife Maddalena. There's also two brilliant portraits of them in the Pitti Gallery painted by Raphael.

As for the 'Manchester Madonna', despite the fact that the National Gallery presents it as a Michelangelo with considerable authority, and hangs it on the wall with the Deposition which has all the hallmarks of a Michelangelo, not all the experts agree that he painted it. This one here, for example, is certain that he did not, although it is a very fine picture. The often-expressed opinion is that is is by a pupil or imitator but there is no agreement as to who it is. And we really CANNOT put a date on it. --Amandajm 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


When I removed the content of Michelangelo the Artist.... I also removed the references that were specific to that article.

There is now nothing in the Reference box, although it's quite obvious thhat previous writers have used references.

I think the best way to go is to transfer the mmost appropriiate titles from the section below (I can't think whether its called Other Reading or what.) Don't pput Irving Stone's Angony and Ecstacy into the References box, as it is a fictionalised account. It really needs to be sorted out by the person/s who wrote the material. Did you use Vasari as an original source, for example, or take a quotation of his from one of the other sources?

If that is the case, then a reference to Vasari needs to go into the Other Reading box. I could add it.

--Amandajm 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Best place for Frescobaldi Family reference

Howdy! I'd like to put a link from this article to the Frescobaldi Family article because of this reference In exchange for exclusive paintings, the Frescobaldis traded their wine with the Italian Renaissance painter Michelangelo. Reference link Dayton Daily News. I would really like input from the article editors on where would be the best place to put that reference so as to not interupt the flow of the article. Thanks! Agne27 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what has been done with the other references?

A great deal of the information in this article is unsourced. Why are we getting so uptight about whether or not the discussion of the artist's homo-eroticism is unsourced? Why not work through the entire article and chop everything that is unsourced? Is the gender issue really the only thing that needs to be approached in a scholarly manner?

Let me point out here that some person who is so blinking determined to prevent any slur against the name of a man who is, if not "universally", then at least very very (very) widely considered to be homosexual, has also deleted all the References and See alsos, so that now the article is entirely without trustworthy and verifiable sources. If you are the person who did this, how about you work through the edits, find your own and correct what you have done.

This sort of rough-handling of an article in the eagerness to put one's own point across is really slack!

--Amandajm 11:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


The article mentions that he's a poet, and he's categorized as such, but there is no discussion of his poetry at all. Surely it should be at least briefly discussed? I don't know anything about it, so I can't do it. john k 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I am not aware of Michelangelo being a poet but it can be hypothesized that as a sculptor, painter, he may have had his own verbal reflections or may have even written a line or two somewhere. One does not need to write a lengthy verse to prove himself a poet. Some of the most interesting and touching verses are those of few words but their realism is what makes them immortal.
(Jonarvs 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC))


Michelangelo wrote poems as a hobby (e.g. writing poems to his lover and poems about the stress whilst painting the sistine ceiling), actually perhaps he is more specifically a sonnetist; there are a lot of resources of Michelangelo's poetry if you search in Google; there are sever books of his poetic collection published as well, if you have a look on amazon.
Visionsofthelastdays 07:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


"Many would agree that as a pure artist Michelangelo is supreme, because all his works are not only unimaginably brilliant but also convey a mammoth sense of emotion and passion that other artists have imitated but aren't quite able to match." This, from the opening paragraph, seems incredibly POV.

I thought that it was entirely inappropriate and removed it. The following paragraphs give a picture of Michelangelo's greatness that is supported by facts.

--Amandajm 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it neutral to say that I think Michelangelo was really irritated over the fact that they wanted him to copy Durer for his Last Judgment' instead of his own interpretation? Durer did this sometime before Michelangelo got to that wall of the sistine chapel.

This is for the Durer Pic I'm talking about :

Description vienna

'Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand'





Albrecht Durer

(Reusing this file)

See below.

Other versions

DavoudMSA (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Michelangelo's supposed irritation verified by scholarship, or your opinion? Luca Signorelli's Last Judgment would seem to have been a more direct precursor. JNW (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Michelangelo

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Out of Place

"Il Magnifico himself is buried in an obscure corner of the chapel, not given a free-standing monument, as originally intended. He was also tutored and was first apprenticed to Ghirlandaio."

I don't know enough about the guy to make the change, so I thought I'd alert folks on here that the last sentence here seems a little out of place. It's also confusing to determine who is specifically being referenced.

Rod Hull & Emu 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a muddle

"Il Magnifico" is Lorenzo d'Medici. There are two great tombs, of Lorenzo and Giuliano d'Medici, but they are not the Lorenzo and the Giuliano. They are two much less famous and remarkable decendants of the family. Lorenzo the Magnificent has a relatively obscure tomb.

The bit about "He was also tutored and was first apprenticed to Ghirlandaio." relates to Michelangelo, not to Lorenzo.

People just drop info into articles in all sorts of ridiculous places without looking at the context. --Amandajm 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No poof about Michelangelo being a homosexual

There is not poof about Michelangelo being a homosexual, this is slander to say so. This article is bias, and poor.

--Margrave1206 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No "poof" that he was homosexual, eh? This easily gets my "unintentionally hilarious typo of the week" award. Bearcat 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, the article needs to go poof, it is being used as a soapbox for the homosexual agenda, it is offensive to change history. It is very offensive to place Michelangelo under the listing of homosexual. --Margrave1206 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it slander and offensive to say that someone is homosexual? Orpheus 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality in the 15th-16th centuries

I've deleted the comments that I made here which, as Dab rightly points out below, were an unnecessary expose.....well, it ought to be unnecessary to have to explain at length why it is that Michelangelo is thought to have been homosexual. One would think that his works, even without the sonnets and documentary evidence speak loudly enough, but, well, there you are...

--Amandajm 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I somehow fail to see the point of your exposé here. You yourself say that homoeroticism was a matter of convention at the time (and place, that is, the more decadent urban corners of the Italian Renaissance), so to be sure, its presence in the works of Michelangelo most certainly does not suffice to prove he was a homosexual. The homoeroticism is, as you put it, a feature of the period, not the man. The "LGBT" tag is in any case an anachronism ("transgender"??), applicable to the post-1990 USA and not much else. You might as well make Category:Renaissance artists a subcategory of Category:Gay artists once and for all. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::*"....... is his love of male beauty which attracted him both aesthetically and emotionally. Such feelings caused him great anguish, and he expressed the struggle between platonic ideals and carnal desire in his sculpture, drawing and his poetry, too....." Speculation of Michelangelo's attractions and feelings needs to be referenced. Even then it can only be assumptions, but at least if they are referenced we know they are the assumptions of an acknowledged expert. This is an important Wikipedia page, it has be be beyond reproach and written in a scholarly fashion. Giano 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So because his works were of nudes he is homosexual? Last I recall all artist classical or not respected the human form. Most artist of the period would sculpt or paint nudes, also they produced works for wealthy patrons. --Margrave1206 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything pertaining to his sexuality can only be speculation, that is why it has to be referenced, we cannot assume that those who painted femail nudes were heterosexual and those that painted male were homosexual. John Constable actually painted naked male soldiers for practice, but I have never read anywhere this meant he may be homosexual (not that it matters if he was). My point is that all speculations on these matters need to in line cited and referenced so that the reader can form his/her own opinion of the reliability of the source. Giano 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have restored previously deleted sections, including relationships, references, and links, because I believe their deletion was the result of vandalism. I agree that the section on relationships would profit from citation and reference. JNW 02:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Have added some content and references regarding various interpretations of M's sexuality, bottom line being that interpretations are many, and we don't know the answers. But the art and poetry are beautiful. Viva l'ambiguity. JNW 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Details about books

JNW, please let me know precisely where on the site you linked that shows the Amazon link to the Michelangelo is not allowed, as I can not see the relevant part. This raises a general issue of providing more details about books. Rather than just providing titles, authors, publishers and dates it would be good to have more detail about listed books - synopsis, cover, pages, reviews, etc. This could be done by linking to the publisher's page for that book, if there is one, or an online retailer's page for that book, such as those on Amazon or Bol. However, I suspect that despite it being beneficial, that there is (in my opinion wrongly)some rule against it. If I knew the best place for raising this issue in order to get a definitive answer I would find out. --XX7 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

No rule. It is, I gather, part of the beneficial policy to keep Wikipedia free of commercial links, even when involving something we all want more of, like books and art. As stated in my edit summary: WP:EL, under 'links normally to be avoided', #4. Thanks, JNW 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rule 4 of "Links normally to be avoided", seems to deal with Amazon links : 4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. It uses the word "normally" rather than always, but rule 4 otherwise clearly concerns Amazon and other online book stores. A stupid rule in my opinion, because the ISBN does not give anyone any information about the books or even tell somebody where they can obtain the books. When faced with a bibliography I would like to see a bit more about information each book in order to know which ones to follow up. Wikipedia's antipathy towards commercial sites or advertising seems excessive to me. Online bookstores not only sell (which isn't such a terrible thing), but also provide useful information. I'll see if I can find the relevant place for questioning this counterproductive rule. --XX7 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a link; only the ISBN number should be given. This gives readers links to all sorts of places where they can find the book, including libraries and online book sellers. See Wikipedia:ISBN for more information on this. ShadowHalo 06:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Troubling Pederasty links

I am quite troubled by the links made to pederasty entries which seem to try to confirm some legitimacy or acceptance of pederasty by figures of high renaissances.

For example, while there is no evidence that Francesco Melzi was anything more than an assistant to Leonardo Da Vinci. One French essayist and screen-writer has speculated more, none of his other biographers has done so. It is not part of the Wikipedia entry on Leonardo, yet it seems to infiltrate that of Melzi. The same would apply to Michelangelo and the youngster Cecco, it is all speculation, but to follow the links established elsewhere in Wikipedia make it sound a fait accompli, forced by the volitional keyboard of present editors. I strongly object to categorizing Michelangelo among Category:Pederasty in the Renaissance. It makes as much sense as putting him into the section on athlete's foot because he once had an fungal infection between his toes. CARAVAGGISTI 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the scholarly sources on this material and try to avoid judgmental declarations. Your opinion of pederasty or mine are besides the point. Enough legitimate gender studies scholars have written on this material so that we do not have to rehash it here. If you are not prepared for an in-depth investigation you may find this link edifying, as well as this one. Hood of course is not the last word on these matters, but is consistent with the treatment here. Haiduc 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your sources in the gay and lesbian encyclopedia shed no documentary insight into the relationship between Michelangelo and anyone. None. They specifically state that it imposissible to prove anything one way or the other on the basis of the available evidence.

I have strong suspicions, and would so imply, that Leonardo was homosexual. There is contemporary accusations of exactly that. As a 24 yr old he was accused of having a relationship with a 17 yr old. Had it been a 24 yr old man and a consenting 17 yr female in Florence of the 1500s, it would not have been considered pederasty. There is no evidence that Leonardo had an affair with Melzi. None. The language that Melzi addressed to Leonardo, in a single letter seeking continue patronage is no different than that commonly used in his day. For example, read letters to the Medici by Giuseppe Maria Crespi in the 1700s or by Parmigianino to the Pope in the 1500s, when seeking employ. Again, you provide no evidence that merits documentation here in an article about the artist Michelangelo. Certainly this does not merit linking Michelangelo to Historical Pederastic couples. As stated by others, I find Haiduc's continued linking of pederasty links to these two renaissance figures, not having a goal of factual knowledge, but seeking to make pederasty appear a common and widely practiced behaviour in that time.CARAVAGGISTI 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • According to Hood: "No surviving evidence contradicts that assertion" of Condivi's, that Michelangelo practiced life-long chastity. It is still the same as before; Michelangelo may or may not have acted on his erotic impulses, but to presume conclusions based even on well-informed speculation, rather than verifiable evidence, would not seem to answer to encyclopedic standards. JNW 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
See my comments here. I hope we will not stoop to claiming that there is "no absolute proof" since by that standard 90% of the material in the Wikipedia would have to be deleted, including the article on gravitation. Haiduc 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the article as it now stands, perhaps too much time is spent on evaluating his love interests, but I am OK with it as it stands. If however, Haiduc continues to link this article to historical pederastic couples or insinuate comments into this one that state that "pederasty was widely practiced in Florence" as he did for Leonardo, using a poorly substantiated and agenda driven source, I would please ask for all the editors to weigh in. CARAVAGGISTI 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

revolutionised classical architecture

According to the intro, Mike "revolutionised classical architecture" with his invention of giant pilasters. I don't know anything about architecture and how historians of architecture have divided it up, yet I doubt that the reference to classical architecture can be right - the architecture of ancient Greece and Rome? Or was it Renaissance architecture that he revolutionised? PiCo 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

'Classical' is a style as well as a period; the intro uses it in the former sense. Most architects working in the classical style since have been indebted to "Mike's" invention (though one feels that if he hadn't invented it, someone else would have), because columns and pilasters had not previously been more than one storey high. So it is not a purely 'Renaissance' thing. 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Covered with a . . . Pan?

The article states ". . . the marble statue of Cristo della Minerva . . . was covered by a pan . . ." The article about the sculpture itself states that "During the Baroque period a girdle was added." The photo clearly shows a cloth-like piece about the loins of the statue.

Neither Google, nor my American Heritage Dictionary, nor the pan Wikipedia disambiguation page provide a definition of "pan" that could mean a piece of cloth worn about the loins.

So. If "pan" is a technical term in artistic or other jargon, it will not make sense to most readers, and based on my own experience, won't be easy to look up. If so, it should be linked to a Wikipedia article that explains what a "pan" is, since the information is not readily available from other sources. If "pan" is not some kind of jargon, it should be changed.


Gundark 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


I reverted the 'fun fact', which claimed that Michelangelo owned two poms. Upon further research, he apparently did own a Pomeranian which watched him as he painted in the Sistine. Is this worth inclusion in the article, under 'trivia'? I give up. JNW 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michelangelo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Rated B as WPV0.5 already rated it B.
  • Heavy vandalism has occurred in mid to late September 2006. Check on any remaining vandalism.
  • Several sections contain only the stub template. These need to be expanded (d'oh).
  • in-line references must be added Errabee 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)