User talk:Akisgran

Sistine Chapel ceiling

The information that you added was an interesting theory. One writer's interesting theory. That means that it doesn't get presented as "Further analysis....", but if significant enough to be included at all, it should be presented as a recent theory proposed by a specific (named) individual.

The paragraph that you added to goes:

The iconography of the ceiling has had various interpretations in the past, some elements of which have been contradicted by modern scholarship[nb 4] and others, such as the identity of the figures in the lunettes and spandrels, continue to defy interpretation.[23] Modern scholars have sought, as yet unsuccessfully, to determine a written source of the theological program of the ceiling, and have questioned whether or not it was entirely devised by the artist himself, who was both an avid reader of the Bible and a genius.[24] Also of interest to some modern scholars is the question of how Michelangelo's own spiritual and psychological state is reflected in the iconography and the artistic expression of the ceiling.[nb 5]

These statements sum up the fact that many writers have come up with many different theories.

I'll take a look at Oliveira's paper. It's probably time I put my own online somewhere. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just read the paper.

• There is some valuable material in it. I am not sure that the identification of individual prophets with particular contemporaries is entirely pertinent. On the other hand. Readers would find it interesting.
• The notion that artists deliberately hid "demons" in their artworks is ridiculous. Humans are programmed to see faces. two dots, or blobs, with a dash underneath make a face, even if it's sideways :-) That is the way we see.

People who are looking for demons, see demons in the bathroom tiles. People who want to see Jesus, see his image on burnt toast. People who want to see the Virgin Mary find her in every melted candle. Oliveira has looked for demons and found them everywhere! It is to be expected. As an artist, I know that sometimes it can be difficult to prevent such images from accidentally appearing in a painting, as they do in the clouds. In one of my pictures, I had a tree that was determined to be an ostrich. When I finally eliminated the ostrich, I discovered that it had become a baby elephant.

• On the other hand, the likening of Zechariah to John the Baptist is excellent, and, for me, solves the problem of why Michelangelo selected those two scenes in particular, out of all the possibilities.

• I find it unfortunate that Oliveira has teemed what seems to be real scholarship with total nonsense!

I'll include some of Oliveira's stuff in the relevant sections.

I am certainly encouraged to put my own stuff online as it slots in with Oliveira's notions of Babylon and Jerusalem, very neatly. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)