Talk:Michelangelo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sixtine_Chapel it says “He painted the Last Judgment over the altar, between 1535 and 1541”. In http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

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

Cite error

• 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

Yes, the article is protected. One of the refs has gone wrong, but this should be left so someone can fix it. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfectionist

I have just removed a statement that Michelangelo was a "profound perfectionist" and that if he found a flaw in his work, he considered it ruined.

This is nonsense. Michelangelo doesn't appear to have ever considered anything "ruined". He took a great block of stone that was considered "ruined" and turned it into "David". He took another block, and finding a serious flaw in the stone, continued to carve, and produced one of the more complete of the "Captives", with a great diagonal mark across the figure. While working on one of his Madonnas, he accidentally knocked one arm off. "Not to worry!" He carved another arm behind her back. While working on his last Pieta, he went on and on and on carving, until there was not enough stone left for the figures. As for his "Captives", they appear unfinished. It is probable that they were intended to be like that.

Amandajm (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mannerism

Many art historians, including Frederick Hartt, in his Art: A History of Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, have labeled Michelangelo as belonging to both the High Renaissance and Mannerist schools, citing his long lifespan as an impetus for more development in style than in others (Titian's development is comparable in technique, if not intent). Max Caldwell (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read similar things, but they tend to relate them by analogy, or say that his later works are inspirations for mannerism. This is most often said of his unfinished Pieta and of The Last Judgment.... What exactly does Hartt say? Lithoderm 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked up Hartt on this yet, but I would go with the notion that The Last Judgement is Mannerist. I can't agree over the Pieta, simply because there isn't enough of it left to ascertain what his intention for the work might have been. The "Victory" has decidedly Mannerist tendencies. (pity about the wall eye!) Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Drawing and sculpture

I just removed a sentence that said that although Michelangelo considered himself primarily a sculptor, he continued to draw every day. This is a misunderstanding, and is misleading. It indicates an exclusivity- that there is a division between sculpture and drawing, and that one either sculpts or draws. This is not the case.

An artist might see themselves (as Michelangelo did) as a sculptor and not a painter. Painting and sculpture are the artist's finished products. But this does not mean that he saw himself as a sculptor and therefore not a draftsman.

In the cases of both painters and sculptors, most artists, like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, del Sarto, Pontormo, use drawing as a means of recording observations, recording ideas, and designing finished projects. In Michelangelo's day, drawing was almost always a means to an end, rather than a finished product. One only has to look at the drawings of Michelangelo to see the hand of a sculptor in them.

Leonardo's drawings, on the other hand, are painterly. (One major 16th century painter claimed that he "never drew anything first" but worked straight onto the canvas. That artist is Titian, and his general lack of drawn preparation often reveals itself in anatomy that is very poor indeed. On the other hand, a number of works, where both the design and anatomy are complex, (like the Bacchus and Ariadne in the National Gallery) suggest a very high level of preparation, so he was probably exagerating.) Amandajm (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Personality

The following citation should be added to the phrase: "Another better-known anecdote claims that when finishing the Moses (San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome), Michelangelo violently hit the knee of the statue with a hammer, shouting, "Why don't you speak to me?", located in the end of the second paragraph.

Citation: Maria S. Haynes: The Italian Renaissance and Its Influence on Western Civilization‎,p. 79, University Press of America, 1991.

(Excerpt: "In the statue of the Moses, there is a small indentation in the left knee"..."'Why don't you speak to me'. Receiving no answer, Michelangelo hit Moses' knee with a hammer.")--Lian55 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the passage it is written that Michelangelo was born in(6 march 1475) and died in(18 february 1564)and his age was 88.If we subtract 88 from 1564 we shall get 1476 and the birthdate is 1475.A book about him says that he died when he was 89 years old.Please concentrate on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.96.33 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo's death age! no offense to the creator of this article but michelangelo would have died aged 89 and almost 90. This is just a case of bad math

The math is correct. Please read again the days and months of birth and death; according to the article he had not yet reached his 89th birthday, hence he was 88. JNW (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Davids

Can the I have removed the image of the David copy (File:MichelangeloDavid.jpg) please be removed? which was recently added. It creates a large expanse of white space below the section heading "Sistine Chapel ceiling" and is unnecessary, given the image opposite, File:Michelangelos_David.jpg. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Michelangelo's Florence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuvolanelvento (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo in "See Also" section

In the "See Also" section, there is a typo in the last line. "Micheangelo" is missing an l. Since the article is semi-protected, I cannot change this. But someone else should. afireinside13t (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's another typo:

1. Pietrangeli, Carlo, et al. (1994). The Sistene Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

It should say "Sistine" instead of "Sistene" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.19.253 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  19:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found something and it looks kinda funny how it's typed. It's in Last sketch found section. In it it says "his last before his 1564 death". I think it should go "his last before his death in 1564". I can't change it myself since it says it's semi-protected. I don't know if it's considered a typo or not but can someone else change it?

Done. Thanks. JNW (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (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)

ALSO: {{editsemiprotected}} with the attack on Berlusconi today resulting in a broken nose there is already some media reference to Michelangelo's broken nose. However the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention it or how it occurred.

The following reference:

http://www.famouslives.com/michelangelo.html

describes it as follows (paraphrased): While serving at Lorenzo's palace, one of the other students, named Torrigiano, became jealous of Michelangelo. One day he insulted Michelangelo and when Michelangelo answered back, Torrigiano punched Michelangelo in the face and broke his nose, a deformity which marked Michelangelo for the rest of his life.

The episode spurred Michelangelo to withdraw from other pursuits and pour himself even more fervently into his work.

Eli Blake (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Eli_Blake

I'm having trouble locating a date, but I'm aware of the fact: Pietro Torrigiano struck him on the nose, and thus caused that disfigurement which is so conspicuous in all the portraits of Michelangelo. A date will help position the sentence. Josh Parris

"Blaming the sculptor for having broken Michelangelo's nose sometime prior to 1492" The Italian encounter with Tudor England: a cultural politics of translation By Michael Wyatt

"badly smashed by a punch from fellow Medici-sponsored art student Pietro Torrigiano (1472-1528) when Michelangelo was 17" http://arthistory.about.com/b/2008/07/27/will-the-real-michelangelo-please-stand-up.htm Josh Parris 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, he wasn't free to be anything else. It's not as if Michelangelo or anyone else had a choice. - Campolong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.201.64 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with permission to edit change "Rome" to "Vatican City" in the second paragraph of the intro after "...wall of the Sistine Chapel in..."? The Sistine Chapel is technically NOT IN Rome, since the Vatican is its own city-state... Thanks.

Where did he want to be buried?

Re: Michelangelo's death, the article says "His body was brought back from Rome for interment at the Basilica di Santa Croce, fulfilling the maestro's last request to be buried in his beloved Tuscany." There is no cite for this statement, although a quick Google search reveals a nearly identical quote on several other websites.

However, is the statement re: wanting to be buried in Florence correct? Somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to remember being taught that Michelangelo wanted to be buried at St. Peter's--his masterpiece--and that the Florentines stole his body back to Florence in a bit of skullduggery. I did some (admittedly very superficial) research and couldn't find a definitive source for either proposition. Any Michelangelo/Renaissance scholars out there care to settle the question? Robb8888 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Did michelangelo ever get married?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.202.66 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

/* External links */ Michaeloangelo Code incorrect

If you look under the external links, the "Michaelangelo code" goes to a domain parking service. I'd edit it, but I cannot find an edit link. HNR3256 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)-HNR

Image not showing in "Portraits" section

The page shows "Lead medal of Michelangelo, by Leone Leoni.jpg" instead of an actual image. I'd fix this but cannot edit the page itself. Hufterkruk (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Christopher.a.seryak, 15 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that Michelangelo has a rivalry with fellow Italian, Leonardo da Vinci. There currently is a link requesting the citation. I feel that this line about a rivalry with Leonardo should be removed altogether. Although they are both indeed polymaths, they are almost never considered "rivals" in claiming the archetypal Renaissance man. If there were to be a rivalry, it would be between Michelangelo and Raphael. Both Condivi and Vasari write about this rivarly (both eventually siding with Michelangelo). There are certainly ways to compare and contrast the two Florentines: I am currently writing a paper for a graduate seminar on the issue of automimesis as depicted between Leonardo and Michelangelo. However, in a traditional sense, there is no rivalry between these two as pertaining to the archetypal Renaissance man.

I can provide more reasoning for this later if I am unconvincing at this point. However, I must get back to my paper....

Christopher.a.seryak (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - claim has been uncited since Feb, no mention on Leonardo da Vinci's page either so I have no qualms about taking it out, thanks for the request. Anybody wishing to re-add this should ensure that a reliable source is cited along with it. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Michelangelo's life ends in 1496?

I just wanted to point out that the life is incomplete- the man lived until 1565, and we could really use some basic description of the rest of his years. Thanks79.151.226.93 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The headings were wrong - the "biography" continued in the "works" section. I've redone the headings to merge the two. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lutheran saint

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that he is venerated in the Lutheran Churches. His Commemeration is April 10th according to their Calendar of Saints. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems very acquisitive of them, since he was never a Lutheran. No need to mention I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

they venerate many non-Lutherans.. including John Calvin, John Wesley, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. Alright though, he is in the category of Lutheran saints already. I just thought it would make sense to explain it in the article. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rustysawdust, 15 May 2011

I noticed that there is a page for "The Agony and the Ecstasy" novel on Wikipedia. I would suggest changing the "Further reading" section of this page so that "The Agony and the Ecstasy" is a link to The_Agony_and_the_Ecstasy_(novel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustysawdust (talk • contribs)

Done — Bility (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Michelangelo

Michelangelo's nationality should not be posted as Italian since at that time in history in Italy there was not really a denomination of citizenship as Italian. His nationality should be posted as Florentine just as it is in the copper plate shown at the bottom of the page in this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.87.240 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Architectural Work / Medici Chapel - Final Sentence a bit confusing

The last sentence of the Medici Chapel paragraph under "Architectural work" seems to assume that the reader already knows all about the Concealed Corridor, and is also worded oddly, in such a way that when I read it, it doesn't flow, and inhibits understanding. Perhaps it can be altered to be a bit more explanatory and flow better? That's all the suggestion I have, thank you so much, all of you. Chandell (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, "The concealed corridor with wall drawings of Michelangelo under the New Sacristy discovered in 1976" doesn't make sense.4.238.245.129 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article is semi-protected, thus I cannot edit. Please, add the italian pronunciation according to the IPA as follows: Italian pronunciation: [mikeˈlandʒelo]. --87.17.9.51 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The crucifixition of the Student, according to BBC

I was watching a documentary from the BBC call Fig Leaf, The Biggest Cover Up In History. A large part was about Michelangelo's nude work, but the narrator makes surprising reference to Michelangelo havng a student crucified so he can see what it looked like. It might have been protrayed as a rumour. Well I suppose there is something to it but I cannot find it referenced here or on the internet right away, so if anyone is a study of him and is writing stuff in here, they might write about this if there is anything to base it on? Well it's a significant event or, not sure if I can say *powerful* rumour or even true as I can't find any info on it just now. The phrase was "had" one of his students crucified. Cheers ~ R.T.G 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think actual nails were involved; rope maybe. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

In the second last paragraph of "Michelangelo's sexuality: the poems" there are two typos (missing space, doubled word), here's a corrected version:

translated them into English in 1893 that the original genders were restored. Even in modern times some scholars continue to insist that, despite the restoration of the pronouns,

Please correct that in this article. TY&Greetz, 87.78.213.167 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Please add the following to the list of External Links Michelangelo Gallery Michelangelo’s biography, paintings and sculptures AuctoriCMS (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it looks too commercial...Modernist (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The summary is very biased and attempts to show Michelangelo in a solely admirable light.

While it cannot be refuted that Michelangelo is widely considered to be one of the greatest artists of all time, the summary sounds more like a lavish endorsement for him rather than an encyclopedic description of him.

For example: the sentence "In a demonstration of Michelangelo's unique standing, he was the first Western artist whose biography was published while he was alive" could be replaced simply with "he was the first Western artist whose biography was published while he was alive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddokhanian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this does rather need to steer away from art appreciation towards art history and not take the claims of greatness and uniqueness, which are undoubtedly an important part of the Michelangelo story, quite so much at face value... and I say that as someone who wrote most of that lead section, albeit many years ago now! Ham 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it as is, I feel that the second part of the sentence does support the first part - but - the thing about wikipedia is if you want to make a change that you feel/think improves the article then do it. Often it is a good idea to bring it up on the discussion page, but that can also be done after doing the edit. I frequently cut section out, move them to the talk page and paste them back in with a little explaination. Try it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013

The date of birth in the beginning of the summary page says 1475-18 instead of 1475-81. You should fix that it's confusing. 134.53.245.55 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The 18 is part of the date of death. He was born on 6 March 1475 and died 18 Feb 1564. RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Masculine women

Is it true that he did that because he think that was sexy or is that because he should not portrait nude women on a chapel because it was like promoting carnal sin? My art teacher told me that it was because of the second one, "not to portrait nude women cuz it leads to pervertions" so he made them masculine, to refuse erotism on a chapel. But that's what he said, but can some one give me a source for this? thanks Jak-Esz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.40.6 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Like most artists then, except for Raphael, he used young men as models for all figures, which is one factor. It probably reflects his personal idea of beauty too. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Temporary storage

This might go back, but not where it was

Michelangelo's house was demolished in 1874, and the remaining architectural elements saved by the new proprietors were destroyed in 1930. Today a modern reconstruction of Michelangelo's house can be seen on the Janiculum hill.

Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted a whole lot of recent edits, somewhat reluctantly, back to the version of April 13. Their poor English, vague referencing and research, & reperition of material already covered means they won't do for an article that gets 3M views a year. At the same time the article really deserves improvement. In particular his involvement in St Peter's is not discussed after the lead.

We don't cover one removed bit: "Bramante was doing his best to make him difficulties. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger the appointed architect of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, before him, was upset when Michelangelo proved to the pope that the project of St. Peter's Basilica could be done at much lesser expense and much faster. Sangallo had all his friends an relatives on the project, and intended to live on it for a long time. When Michelangelo took over the project he did not accepted any money for it.".

I don't object to a gallery as such (I removed one) but better captions would be needed.

We need page/section numbers for any ref to Vasari; his life is too long to be referred to as a whole. Can anyone suggest an online life that we could use as standard? Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind if you correct my English at all, I am a Swedish, and I do my best. But I did study Art History and everything I added was correct. It looks like you did remove absolutely everything I was adding and working on, indeed, just everything instead of discussing it first, and suggerst improvements. If you purchase or borrow the book of Vasari from any library,than you would cover all the facts there. If you would have read the book Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects or if you att least would have been acquainted with it, than you would have known that you do not need any page number, to read about Michelangelo, the bok simply has a section called Michelangelo, among all the c. eighty artist presented there. You just find the part and read it. It is about 50 pages. Page numbers can differ in books, if it is a pocket or a big illustrated one, anyway, the only thing you need is this ref>Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, and possibly section about Michelangelo</ref> Your judgment on this, (vague referencing and research) is not exactly correct either. This bok is a fundamental book about Michelangelo. And if you want to write an article on Michelangelo, I strongly advise you to do so, read it,I mean, because it is one of the most reliable biografies existing. About Vasari, he was a fellow architect and one of those non existing friend of Michelangelo, the kind that your article claims that he never had. Vasari met Michelangelo personally, was working with him and he was also hid friend. These habits may have made him unpopular, now that is pure speculation, but you put that back into the article. In Michelangelo's time hostile rumours were being perpetuated about the artist, namely that he was arrogant, avaricious, jealous of other artists, and reluctant to take on pupils. Apparently they made their way into Wikipedia to.

You don't cover one other removed bit either: The whole privat life section is totally incorrect. Michelangelo was a wealthy man, he had friends and he was a generous man, not the kind of miser described there. The part presenting his works was necessary, since you can hardly talk about an artworks without presenting them, visually. Why couldn't you leave it where it was and than try to find better captions, if you can find some, as you said (I tried...can you find better, wery good, I don't mind.) Are you not satisfied, try to improve instead of destroy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I removed it reluctantly. You can't in fact rely on Vasari uncritically - see our article. Better sources should be used that do so. I have 2 editions of Vasari already, thank you, as well as a number of other books on Michelangelo, & I may get round to improving this article before too long. The article does not say he was either a miser or poor. He had friends, but (in strong contrast to Raphael) his relations with colleagues and clients tended to be difficult. 50 pages is far too long not to use pages numbers for. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not agree. Are we reading the same book? "His nature was so rough and uncouth that his domestic habits were incredibly squalid and deprived posterity of any pupils who might have followed him" is from this article. And it is exactly the same sort of hostile rumors that were being perpetuated about the artist, namely that he was arrogant, avaricious, jealous of other artists, and reluctant to take on pupils. Vasari is not unreliable in everything. And in any circumstances no more unreliable than Ascanio Condivi. I am not saying that he didn't have a difficult temperament, but he was not the kind of man that this article presents him. An artist many times needs to be true to himself and stop listening to other people who tell them what to do. They have to stop compromising and have to rely on their instincts. Otherwise they will never develop a style of their own. And that is what m did. But he was also a kind and generous man with many people. I wrote a treatise at the university about Michelangelo. An other about Italian Renaissance. I have some knowledge about him even if you say that my English is poor. Michelangelo was a complex personality with many sides. I am trying to talk to you now. I stopped editing while you go on editing after you reverted my edits, reluctantly or not. Be careful that you are not in the danger of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and think a little about Wikipedia:Negotiation and Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" also.

Hafspajen (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've hardly edited the article at all, nor do I think it adequate. Others are welcome to comment here. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

References

References and stories Descriptions about people’s characters one has to be cautious with, because it is mostly an opinion. Some people think I am nice, others, if you ask them, might say something else. Some people think Drmies is very nice, others say not. This biography was publicized while Michelangelo was still alive. People knew him and had the opportunity to talk to him, judge him. It is not very probable that every piece of information is false, because living people were actually reading this book while both Vasari and Michelangelo were alive. If for instance Annibale Caro or Giovanni Francesco Lottini , mentioned in the book as Michelangelo’s friend never met Michelangelo and it was not his friend’s people would have noticed that. Annibale Caro would have noticed that too. Vasari might be biased in favor of Florentines and tends to attribute to them all the developments in Renaissance, but I hope that we can agree on the fact that Michelangelo was considered the greatest living artist in his lifetime, and ever since then he has been held to be one of the greatest artists of all time. (This part is from the article) I think that Vasari’s opinion estimating him as one of the greatest artists of all time at least was precise. Other Florentines might not deserve his admirations. That said, let’s look at the refs. As I said, it is not at all sure that the pages are the same in my book like the copy you are reading, but that is, something I cannot help.

The issues:

His biographer, Giorgio Vasari (1511 – 1574) who lived at the same time, stated that he had good friends, and pupils, but not too many, only the ones he could really enjoy a good conversation and the ones he really liked

Friends of Michelangelo: Vasari was a friend of Michelangelo; he states that several times. Tiberio Bandini and Francesco Bandini were friends of M. . M. gave them the Bandini Pietà page 614. Antoni Mini, [2] Michelangelo's friend and apprentice moved to France and dies there and loses probably the painting LEDA. . Tiberio Calcagni, apprentice page 628. Page 633, Michelangelo when he could find some time, (and he was working hard and still the tomb, of which the central feature is Michelangelo's statue of Moses was never finished to Michelangelo's satisfaction), anyhow when he had the time he liked to encounter other people like (a list here) Mr. monsignore Bembo, Carpi, Tommaso dei Cavalieri, Claudio Tolomei, Lorenzo Ridolfi, see Clarice de' Medici's daughter Maria Strozzi, married Lorenzo Ridolfi and Annibale Caro, Giovanni Francesco Lottini da Volterra, Bindo Altoviti (Michelangelo was a godfather to Bindo’s son) and other “wonderful, learned and talented” (Vasaris words) people, like cardinal Farnese and Santa Croce, Ridolfi, Maffeo, Page 633 Michelangelo was never wasting his time on people who didn’t deserve it, on despicable, contemptible, worthless people, and he had a very good instinct about people. (Vasaris words) Page 634.

When his servant for 26 years called Urbino was ill, Michelangelo took care of him personally. Michelangelo slept with his close on to be able to get up and help him immediately if he needed something, or was feeling worse. Page 615.

Michelangelo was a wealthy man, he was generous with his servants, friends and relatives and those who needed help.Page 633

Vasari mention that when Michelangelo asked him to excuse him for not willing to move from Rom to Florence, to tell Cosimo Medici that he had a big house full of artworks, furniture and possessions worth several thousand scudos and he was an old man who liked to live in cosiness security and comfort. Page 614

There are examples in the book when Michelangelo helped out people with money, helped poor man with the dowry for their girls, so they should be able to marry. P 633 Other examples mention Michelangelo giving away his works to people he liked, works that he could have been instead selling for big money. P 633 .

Many people got upset for one or another reason with Michelangelo, he was often more talented and often he was right where they were wrong.:

Conflicts:

His nose was broken, because one of his fellow apprentices, Pietro Torrigiano hit him it is covered in the article. pg 562 No mentiom that he did it, being envious when Michelangelo made a better sculpture than his. Torrigiano was forced to leave Florence after this .

. The bridge of Michelangelo was appointed to take care, and made engineering drawings and calculations but the task was given to someone else, they removed m’s engineer and put another engineer called Nanni instead, without M. knowledge. Michelangelo gave up the assignment, but he was warning about that Nanni was making mistakes, and the bridge is insufficiently supported. Nanni was selling the stones and making private earnings on it. Page 612.

He was commissioned to build the Pope's tomb. pg 570. Under the patronage of the Pope, Michelangelo experienced constant interruptions to his work on the tomb in order to accomplish numerous other tasks.(Article) One of these interruptions, according to Vasari's account, happened when Michelangelo was away in Bologna, occupied with a bronze sculpture of the pope, (sculpture lost). Bramante, the pope’s architect convinced the pope that it was bad luck to build a tomb while alive.pg 575 Bramante convinced Pope Julius II to let him paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Michelangelo was reluctant and proposed Raphael instead. Pope Julius insisted. Bramante prepared scaffolding for Michelangelo, but this was anchored in the ceiling. Michelangelo asked Bramante how he is supposed to paint the ceiling with a scaffold thru the ceiling and what is he supposed to do with the wholes afterwards. pg 577. The painting technique employed was fresco, in which the paint is applied to damp plaster. Mending the wholes afterwards was difficult and would left ugly marks.

This was the moment when M. started suspecting B was not his friend pg 577. M. went to the pope and told him the scaffold is no good. To reach the chapel's ceiling, Michelangelo designed his own scaffold. Later when Bramante vetoed against Michelangelo and tried to convince the pop to give the second part of the assigment to Rafael, but the pope refused. Michelangelo on the other hand got angry with Bramante because of this, now he wanted to continue and finish it all. Page 630. In 1546, Michelangelo was appointed architect of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, and designed its dome. Antonio da Sangallo the Younger the appointed architect of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, before him, was upset when Michelangelo proved to the pope that the project of St. Peter's Basilica could be done at much lesser expense and much faster. Sangallo had all his friends an relatives on the project, and intended to live on it for a long time. p 602 When Michelangelo took over the project he did not accepted any money for it.pg 602 He was accused by the people who worked on the building that he was making mistakes the constructors went to the pope and blamed Michelangelo and were spreading around rumors about that he was too old and powerless. Michelangelo got angry and went to the pope to, and said that in this case he is going to live move to Florence immediately. The pope asked a third part opinion Gabrio Sebbelloni, who stated that everything they said to the pope, was false accusations. Pg630. The engineer was kicked out.

Why would Vasari lied about that Michelangelo was a godfather to Bindo Altoviti’s son when he could meet both Bindo och Michelangelo any time on the street? It just doesn’t make sense. He might have picked up a lot of histories about artist he didn’t knew, but he did met and knew Michelangelo, and it is not Michelangelo’s life that is the unreliable part, but tall tales about people he never met, but . Its factual accuracy has been questioned; in certain particulars it is widely held to be unreliable, not to say apocryphal. The author sinned, no doubt, by omission and commission. Yes, but he did knew some of his subjects personally like Michelangelo, and this is why he is a more reliable source on exactly Michelangelo.

Cite from biographybase

His biographies are interspersed with amusing stories. Many of Vasari's anecdotes have the ring of truth, athough some indeed are too good to be true. Others are generic fictions, like the tale of young Giotto painting a fly on the surface of a painting of Cimabue's, which the older master repeatedly tried to brush away, a genre tale that echoes anecdotes told of the Greek painter Apelles.With a few exceptions Vasari's esthetic judgment is acute and unbiased. Vasari did not rifle archives for exact dates, as modern art historians do, and naturally his biographies are more dependable for the painters of his own generation and the preceding one. Modern criticism - with all the new materials opened up by research - has corrected a good many of his traditional dates and attributions. The result is a tendency very often to underestimate Vasari's accuracy.

This is a biography for online Michelangelo biographybase [3] I agee that Michelangelo could be arrogant with others and constantly unsatisfied with himself, but not that his nature was rough and uncouth and his domestic habits were incredibly squalid, that is solely Paolo Giovio's own oppinion. I think Michelangelo is entitled to be presented with both good and bad sides, not only unpleasant ones, and, in this case, even Vasari's oppinion about him.

Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Works

• 
  Bacchus by Michelangelo, early work
• 
  Statue of Victory 1534, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence
• 
  Angel by Michelangelo, early work
• 
  Madonna with child. Brügge, Belgium
• 
  Leda and the Swan (lost), copy
• 
  Dying slave Louvre
• 
  Michelangelo Pietà
• 
  Madonna della scala, Casa Buonarotti, early work

And so on…

This article is an excellent article, well written and balanced and beautifully illustrated. But the part with the private life is superficial, and that is not good. Some of the artworks are not presented, and it would be good if they were. Captions can be regulated in galleries, as you can see here. Hafspajen (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One of these has already been added to the article - you can see from that what a caption should look like. Nearly all of these have their own articles. The gallery should be in chronological or some other order - these seem all jumbled up. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, The gallery should be in chronological or some other order. Why not? Hafspajen (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

same here, the gallery be in chronological or some other order. but, don't forget, it is a pretty tough job after al of these years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.75.122 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well done, Amandajm. That's the way it should look like! Hafspajen (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

References

His name

El means God in Hebrew. Michael means like God in Hebrew. Angel means messenger of God in Hebrew. So together:

  In the likeness of God (in His image,) Messenger of God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byspiritn (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 

Is there an article explaining how he inherited such a long name? I assume it was lined up the patriarchs but his mother was Francesca di Neri del Miniato di Siena with a del in place of a di. Is that an illegitimate birth? I looked at Italian names but it doesn't seem to cover this far back. If you read closely you see that article explains that dei, de' and del mean of the but di is not mentioned. Is naming a child up to the great grandparents normal for the time period? They were merchants; did workers adhere to the practice? What's the story? Also, his father's name is listed as Lodovico di Leonardo di Buonarroti di Simoni but Michelangelo is listed Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. His fathers given name was Lodovico or Leonardo? I'm thinking this is a mistake that his fathers name should read: Leonardo di Lodovico di Buonarroti di Simoni otherwise Michelangelo is carrying his fathers first name and not the family name. Or Michelangelo's name is Michelangelo di Lodovico di Leonardo di Buonarroti. My understanding is unclear so I leave it up to someone better read on him. Alatari (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a common misconception here on wikipedia due to the use of italian legalese. In many legal papers, especially from the past, patronymic names are also used. Some modern italian surnames are plain patronymic (e.g. di Stefano, di Matteo), but in this case, and elsewhere on wikipedia, we clearly have a legalese form. E.g.. a modern italian notarial act would read: "Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti", where Michelangelo is the given name, di Lodovico the patronymic name and Buonarroti the surname.

As a side note: I'm not sure about this, but I don't think that Simoni is a surname either. In the past it wasn't uncommon to use what I could call a "clan" name: in places where there were more families with the same surname, it was sometime used an additional name taken from the most commonly used name in a given family, Simone in this case (pl. Simoni). So Buonarroti Simoni could be "Buonarroti of the Simoni branch". This could be very likely since Michelangelo was from a little village (where consanguinity could lead to a lot of people with the same surname). 84.222.238.220 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

www.infobarrel.com/The_Great_Michelangelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.141 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What was the reason that Pope Julius forced Michelangelo to fresco the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

There is no denying that Michelangelo was a sculptor before he was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, so the legend goes, and I do not doubt the mythology behind it. All the evidence points to the fact that it was because he was a sculptor that he was given what he considered an unsavory task. The answer to the topic's question is the governing theme of the entire fresco on the ceiling.

The viewer sees a montage of bright colored images on the ceiling of the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel thinking that they are all separate and distinct from one another; however, that is far from the truth. Michelangelo designed, in his ceiling-wide fresco, six concentric circles all with the illusion of pulsating out from the center. By the way Michelangelo was simultaneously, at this time, designing the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica.

I direct the reader’s attention to Adam lounging on the hillside and then I point the reader attention to Noah lounging on the couch in an inebriating state. These images are very much like the bronze figures lying across the pendentive spandrels circumambulating the ceiling. These bronze figures on each of the pendentive spandrels are statue-like mirror imaging each other. Analogously, Adam and Noah are statue-like figures: they are doing nothing. In addition I point the reader’s attention to the 48-cherubims (24-pairs) frescoed like statues on twenty-four columns. These bronze and cherubim figures symbolically represent the 72-names of God. Once God is named that name is concretized as in a stone statue: this is heresy because God's name cannot be soiled by the tongue or pen of man.

Now consider the 7-Prophets and 5-Sibyls, which exude the pattern of the Zodiac/Calendar year. The 48-Cherubim represent the child-like figures in the cartouches that houses a Prophet or a Sibyl and the 24-bronze figures represent the Prophets or Sibyls. There are 24-bronze figures because the concept here is either the cartouche is going to house a Prophet (male) or a Sibyl (female) leaving half the bronze figure remaining; furthermore, there are 48-cherubim figures because each of the Prophet and Sibyls have their own cherubim whispering into their ears, which leaves half the cherubim remaining. The idea here is that the bronze figures and the cherubim figures are reanimated into mutable and active figures: Prophet or Sibyl. The two child-like figures in each of the cartouches whispering into the ear of the Prophet or Sibyl represent a devil or an angel. Catholic lore has it that each individual has a devil and an angel on his or her shoulders whispering good or bad advice.

Thus, when Pope Julius (the pope symbolizes the soul) forced Michelangelo to paint the ceiling-wide fresco the Catholic Church was mythologizing what the soul mandates ego-consciousness to do with its life: go from having a fixed statue-like conception of Catholicism (Word of God) to a mutable and varied understanding of the Word of God so that one’s understanding of God is fluid (like paint).

In every sense on a totally symbolic level Michelangelo did paint the 12-Apostles on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. What is on the ceiling is a transmogrification of that concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William-John-Meegan (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Many people have different ideas about the symbolism in Michelangelo's painting. I like to look at the points thoroughly to evaluate them.

To consider some of the points you have made:

• "There is no denying that Michelangelo was a sculptor before he was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, so the legend goes, and I do not doubt the mythology behind it"

I have no idea what you mean by this. It is neither a myth or a legend that Michelangelo was a sculptor before was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel Ceiling. Many of his sculptural works, including the "Pieta" and the "David" were created in his youth. Of course he was a sculptor. It is neither a myth or a legend.

• "six concentric circles all with the illusion of pulsating out from the center."

I have just examined the high resolution image, in search of the "six concentric circles" and cannot find them. For there to be six such circles, or even arcs that on could interpret as parts of concentric circles, there would need to be alignments of many features e.g. bodies, limbs, architectural details etc. that pointed to the presence of concentric arcs in the design. I cannot find them.

• I have looked at a number of the ideas that you have put forward.

1. 48 figures doesn't add up to 72 names of God. Not possibly.
2. Good and Bad angels on the shoulder is an Islamic belief. It has never had regular acceptance in Christianity, even in folklore.
3. It is recognised by art historians that Adam and Noah represent the perfect and the fallen man. Likening them to statues because they are inert is not at all convincing. Michelangelo's statues are always full of life.
4. I have searched for your concentric circles. I cannot see any sign of them.
5. I have searched for a way of associating the twelve figures with either the traditional Labours of the Months or the characteristics of the Zodiacal signs, e.g. water carrier, leonine person, paired figures, balance, claws etc. etc etc. These should appear in sequential order (because order is the characteristic that the zodiac always represents in relation to God.) No such discernible order appears to be present, so I conclude that the figures do not represent months.
6. Pope Julius II was not a spiritual leader. He was a hard-boiled warrior, appointed by the church to sort out political problems. The reason for requesting the depiction of the 12 Apostles was that there was already a band of portraits of Popes around the walls. The apostles emphasised the Apostolic Succession and the importance of the Pope, the Catholic Church, and the Bishops. It had nothing whatever to do with personal spirituality, and nothing to do with salvation, except to emphasise that the Catholic Church was in charge of your soul.
7. Michelangelo insisted that he was going to paint his own scheme. What he painted does not refer to the Catholic Church in any way, not even slightly. The only hint of the importance of the Pope is that the young men carry swags of oak leaves and acorns, the symbol of the Pope's family.
8. To say: the Catholic Church was mythologizing what the soul mandates ego-consciousness to do with its life is, frankly, nonsense. This has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church wanted people to do. What they wanted them to do was cling to the Catholic Churh very tightly as the only way to be saved. Anyone who believed that they could have "a mutable and varied understanding of the Word of God" was in serious danger of being burned at the stake. What you are saying is the exact opposite of what was true in the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.
9. Michelangelo was not working on the design for the dome of St Peter's Basilica while he was painting the ceiling. He took up that project in his old age, 35 years after the completion of the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

What you have written here contains some significant errors (the attitude of the 16th century Catholic Church to matters of faith, the chronology of Michelangelo's work) , some notable mistakes (that the Church was responsible for the pictorial scheme) and some dubious theories (12 prophets are linked to twelve months; the twelve apostles are implied rather than represented) and a couple of serious mathematical errors (48=72, a long strip of ceiling divided with horizontal lines into 9 sections is actually organised into 6 concentric circles).

I have not dismissed these ideas without consideration; none of them has convinced me. You need to do a whole lot more reading about Michelangelo and about art and the Catholic Church in the 1500s. Read about the Reformation and the Counter-reformation.

Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New good image

Michelangelo's portrait of Marcello Venusti, around 1535

I find this picture and I would like to make it in the article, but I can't. Please do it. The recorded date (1504-1506) is probably false, because Michelangelo was cc. 60 years old on the picture, am I right? Thank you. Regards. --145.236.118.171 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The date cannot be 1504-1506, and it is unlikely that it is as early as 1535. There are a number of portraits of Michelangelo that are rather like this one. They are generally not painted from life. Michelangelo was a grouchy, surly man, who didn't care about his appearance and didn't pose for portraits. In other words, pictures like this are not really "authentic" portraits done from life; they are pictures done for families that were patrons, or who collected images of great men. It would be possible to find at least a half a dozen pictures such as this by different artists.

Look at this image [4]. It is very obvious that the painting by Venutsi has been copied from it. In making the copy, Venutsi has lost all the subtleties. It Venutsi's picture, every wrinkle is identical, and they are all evenly spaced. Compare the crow's feet at the corner of the right eye. This little detail on its own is enough to tell you that Venutsis's picture is a copy of someone else's picture.

The drawing by Daniele Volterra that heads up the page is probably the best likeness that there is. Volterra was his assistant and knew him well. The drawing has the appearance of having been done from life. It is obvious that someone (probably Volterra) used the drawing to make a painting. (The drawing has little pinpricks through the lines).

The article doesn't need more images of Michelangelo. It is the images of his work that are important.

Amandajm (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, thanks. My IP's changed. Bye. 145.236.118.171 --81.182.180.207 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014

Should he be in the catergory art forgers? if so please mention in article.

2003:50:AB44:9101:8A53:2EFF:FE9A:5C63 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done removed the category as not mentioned in article - all artists in that period copied works as part of their training. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

The entry on the David needs some minor editing as follows: My edits appear as bold since I am new to editing. I hope this makes sense. Please email with questions.

Michelangelo returned to Florence in 1499. The republic was changing after the fall of anti-Renaissance Priest and leader of Florence, Girolamo Savonarola, (executed in 1498) and the rise of the gonfaloniere Piero Soderini. He was commissioned by the consuls of the Guild of Wool to complete an unfinished project begun 40 years earlier by Agostino di Duccio: a colossal statue of Carrara marble portraying David as a symbol of Florentine freedom, to be placed on a tribune spur of Florence Cathedral.[28] Michelangelo responded by completing his most famous work, the Statue of David, in 1504.[place new source here] The masterwork definitively established his prominence as a sculptor of extraordinary technical skill and strength of symbolic imagination. A team of consultants, including Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci, was called together to decide upon its placement, but reached no definitive recommendation. It was ultimately placed in the Piazza della Signoria, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio. It now stands in the Academia Gallery while a replica occupies its former place in the square.[29]

New source: A. Victor Coonin, From Marble to Flesh: The Biography of Michelangelo’s David Florence, The Florentine Press, 2014.

Babombadier (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)babombadierBabombadier (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to ask, you refer to this very new book as "definitive", are you in some way affiliated with the book or its publication? Яehevkor ✉ 12:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another change that needs to be made is the date of the category. According to Hirst, another definitive source, Michelangelo returned from Rome to Florence in 1501 (probably March). See Michael Hirst, Michelangelo: The Achievement of Fame, New Haven and London, 2011, pages 42-43.

I apologize for the overuse of the word definitive. Yes, I am affiliated with the Marble to Flesh book and you may feel free to remove the word. I'll be checking for more errors in the Michelangelo entry.

Punctuation corrections

Observe this edit. In 21 places, a hyphen appeared where an en-dash belongs, because ranges of numbers, such as those of years or pages, require an en-dash, not a hyphen, under WP:MOS. Four of those were in section headings! How could such an error be in such a conspicuous place? (Maybe it was put there five minutes before I edited it? I haven't checked that.) I also simply deleted one hyphen. Note:

RIGHT: He was a 15th-century painter.

RIGHT: He lived in the 15th century.

WRONG: He was a 15th century painter.

WRONG: He lived in the 15th-century.

Michael Hardy (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Michelangelo is a Level 3 page. This means that it is a page that is pivotal to understanding both M, his world and its people and events. Indeed much of M's contribution can not be understood without a comprehensive understanding of the context in which he worked. While hypertext points to the other pages which inform us of this context the links do not provide us with a temporal structure in which to organize this context. This is like describing a symphony by describing the instruments in the score without saying how they combine to make the music.

For this reason I would like to suggest that this level 3 page include a comprehensive timeline as (at least) a separate page. It would include entries for the many classical sources which sponsored the Renaissance, entries for the rediscovery of these sources, and the events in M's life which relate to contemporary figures and their influences on M and the world he lived in.

This is not just about books, but also frescoes, sculptures, mosaics, buildings and other objects which were rediscovered before and during M's life. It is not just about objects but also about methods and processes, such as printing, book-keeping, political science, rationalism, the evolution of the scientific method, the new cosmology and building methods. It is also about new materials, reopening quarries, rediscovery of concrete, pigments, medicines and chemical agents. It is also about the relationship to events in M's world which are influenced by the discovery of the New World.

M was not just an artist. He was a polymath. The last part of his life was devoted to overseeing the construction of a massive project.

It is possible that this has never been done before, in which case it would be new research. However it is research in the sense of compilation and organization of existing information, just like any other Wikipedia page.

When we consider the scope of such a timeline we see it is an enormous undertaking, even if limited only to the aspects that directly impinge on our understanding of M's life. 116.251.188.18 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC) webscool

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

Change line 45

From:

Michelangelo's Pietà, St Peter's Basilica (1498–99)

To:

Michelangelo's Pietà, St Peter's Basilica (1498–99)

It is only a better photo of this great sculpture

Juan M Romero (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Done - updated the image. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

I would like to request that the article should mention under 'Legacy' that the cartoon character Michelangelo (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) was named after Michelangelo Buonarroti along with his brothers being named after fellow Italian Renaissance artists: Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (Raphael), Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi (Donatello) and Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Leonardo Da Vinci) Nelatti (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

LGBT

I want to draw the editors attention to the fact that User:Arch8887 is persistently removing the category LGBT history from the Leonardo da Vinci page. The same editor is now making similar removals here. Amandajm (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at the categories. Seems like the most important thing is the supposed Michelangelo´s belonging (which is not sure) to several LGBT categories. This is not contributing to the expert value of this Wikipedia article. Laborec (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to go along with the category Category:Gay artists. There should be at least one sentence mentioning this in the article. --63.251.248.156 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

The caption reading:

"The Madonna of the Stairs (1490–92), Michelangelo's earliest known work"

should read

"The Modonna of the Stairs (1490-92), Michelangelo's earliest known work in marble"

This should be similarly updated under the "works" section. The earliest known work (according to wikipedia itself) is

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Torment_of_Saint_Anthony_(Michelangelo)

Apologies if I have not submitted this request correctly as I'm just a random internet reader trying to fix an issue, not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but it's a clear error on the page.

50.242.112.174 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Section heading: Life - Bologna, Florence and Rome, 1492–99

2nd paragraph:

Suggest to amend this sentence:

According to Condivi, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, for whom Michelangelo had sculpted St. John the Baptist, asked that Michelangelo "fix it so that it looked as if it had been buried" so he could "send it to Rome ... pass [it off as] an ancient work and ... sell it much better."

to:

According to Condivi, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, for whom Michelangelo had sculpted St. John the Baptist, asked that Michelangelo fixed the Sleeping Cupid "so that it looked as if it had been buried" so he could "send it to Rome ... pass [it off as] an ancient work and ... sell it much better."

As it is, the sentence may mislead readers to think that the subject of fixing is the statute of John the Baptist, while the Sleeping Cupid should be the one referred to.

--H9398374 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelangelo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630155910/http://books.simonandschuster.ca/9780743254779 to http://books.simonandschuster.ca/9780743254779
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411203848/http://www.zipser.nl/michelangelo1.html to http://www.zipser.nl/michelangelo1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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 June 1985 (UTC)

mierdoso, your argument makes no sense, I think that if ANYONE were to live today who lived in that era, they most certainly wouldnt be catholic, unless they were born that way. No one converts to catholicism, and few people stay catholic. however, despite all that i think that he WOULD be a catholic if he was alive today. He was a VERY religious man. If he wasnt catholic, he would most definitly be christian, but I believe he would be catholic through and through. and im a mormon, so i dont say that out of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.128.42 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2010 (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)

More to the point, he wasn't free to be anything else. It's not as the inhabitants of Florence or Rome were given a choice in the matter. Freedom of worship and freedom of conscience were non-existent in sixteenth-century Italy Campolongo (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is motivated by abject garbage: WASPy anti-Catholicism. Get a real hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite well established now that Michelangelo was sympathetic to the Spirituali, those Italians who were critical of the established church and who drew on Lutheran ideas with a view to reforming it. Vittoria Colonna, M's close friend, shared this perspective. Neither of them were Protestants in the sense of wanting to break from the church. Religion played a large role in M's professional and personal life. Those who are lukewarm about faith or who go through the motions because it's de rigueur don't interest themselves in reform, particularly at a time it could be labeled heretical. It seems to me that something of this should be included in the entry. But given the heat of the debate in evidence here and the animus toward discussion of M's faith, I hesitate to put any time into writing up the information if it will only be deleted or if it will merely spark more vitriol. I'd love to hear otherwise. KC 23:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

About the sexuality

The quotes definitively seem weird in nowdays context. Then again, those are not as gay as Frodo and Sam from lord of the Rings. Nevermind that, the thing is I've actually always thought Michelangelo's sculptures are the not nearly as gay as the average Renaissanse sculpture, his just seem too attractive and reflect some hedonism and narcisism. Take a look at the sculptures in the work of Andrea Palladio, far less realistic, far less intense and incredibly effeminated. It's complicated, because I think Michelangelo's men are likely to be attactive to homosexual people, but in the same way they would be to women in general; while I wouldn't qualify Palladio's as attactive to anyone, because they are mostly effeminated bold men with beards, but I'd definitively say they fit the effeminate-gay stereotype, which makes Michelangelo's look straight in contrast.

Perhaps the section about Michelangelo's sexuality should reflect a little more of that contrast by mentioning other works that look more effeminated.--201.155.3.160 (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whole section is something to laugh at. (Submixster (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

He was withdrawn from men and dedicated his paintings to the word of God. Could the elusive "male" object of his poems refer to his longing to see God rather than man? Why would a talented artist and sculptor write about erotic love toward men? It makes little sense unless it is looked through the lens of current society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byspiritn (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Moved this comment to the bottom of the section, as per the usual format here) Amandajm (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a very idealistic view. But it isn't the case. The two different young men to whom Michelangelo wrote poetry and with whom he was in love are known identities. A reply from one of the young man exists. One poem says quite explicitly that Michelangelo "enjoyed him in bed".

It is beyond doubt that Michelangelo was actively homosexual. He was also deeply religious.

Neither of those two things can be said about his contemporary Leonardo da Vinci. Nothing definite is known about his sexuality except that he was anonymously accused with procuring a young man (possibly as an artist's model). Even less is known about his religious beliefs except that he made confession and received communion before he died. (My own thought it that Leonardo did this to avoid embarrassing his patron, the King of France, who would have wanted a proper burial for him). Amandajm (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm: "It is beyond doubt that Michelangelo was actively homosexual" is hilariously false. There is no evidence whatsoever that Michelangelo was sexually active. Schlier22 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

YOUR writings are hilarious and not those from Amandajm who is absolutely right, as the article about Cecchino dei Bracci make it clear, among other things. Frimoussou (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

Nobel Angelo Ivan Angelo Jovito Angelo RaphaelAngelo Anonim64 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add tag to main page

{{Linkrot}}
207.35.33.162 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:Snow close. (closed by page mover) feminist (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Michelangelo → Michelangelo Buonarroti – According to WP:NCP, we need to use first and last name for articles. Michelangelo's is missing his last name. So, I think we should add it here to let new readers know what surname he had. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - see WP:MONONYM and WP:STAGENAME, both part of WP:NCP. Michelangelo has been usually known as such since his own lifetime. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - nonsense. There are better ways "to let new readers know what surname he had" than bludgeoning like this. This is particularly bad judgement and rational. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:MONONYM. Alex2006 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per LONG TERM SIGNIFICANCE. The Michelangelo is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is most commonly known as simply, Michelangelo. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MONONYM. CookieMonster755✉ 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated; also because addition of the surname is likely to confuse many readers who will wonder if they've come to the wrong page—they're looking for the Michelangelo, and don't know Michelangelo Buonarrotti from Michelangelo Merisi or Michelangelo Antonioni. Ewulp (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I just found the name change thing

Most strongly oppose. Or to quote The Ramones, I'm Against It. Carptrash (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

{{Linkrot}}

Thank you. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Updates are in place. Ewulp (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Another site talking about Michelangelo

Some months ago I created a site talking about the famous sculptor. Whereas I do not consider it brings any new information, I feel it is a good start for those who are in the dark and would like to learn a little about Michelangelo. The address is

http://www.michelangelobuonarroti.org

There is also a gallery of works by the artist: drawings, paintings, frescoes, scultures and architecture.

I would very much welcome any suggestions and corrections.

Richard Willmer 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought Michelangelo's preference for male sex partners was settled historical fact. Many Renaissance men had same-sex affairs before their late twenties and early thirties, but Michelangelo continuted to have male partners long after that (see Michael Rocke, _Forbidden Friendships: Homeosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence_ Oxford, 1998). One example not mentioned yet in this page, for instance comes from pages 58-61 of Benvenuto Cellini's autobiography. Cellini describes Michelangeol flirting with a sixteen year old man named Diego, who though Michelangelo knew he was male, was dressed as a woman. According to Cellini, Michelangelo kissed the young man's cheeks and feet. https://archive.org/stream/autobiographyofb00cell/autobiographyofb00cell_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela McVay (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 May 2018 (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)

If anyone knows Italian, they must also know that there cannot be a name Buonarroti... because the word buona is a word and no word starts with two "r"s

the name is misspelled in the article, and the correct spelling is Buanorotti, which is a correctly spelled Italian name...

it would be a shame if it stayed misspelled in Wikipedia. Any educated person would know that... hm.

References

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Italian books know him as "Buonarroti" so that settles it. Give them credit for knowing their own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.100.189 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

my request is to change michelangelos name cause its wrong is should be michelangelo Yunisdaposs (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not clear what change you want. If you want to change the spelling of the name, please discuss it here on the talk page first to get consensus. RudolfRed (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes

Why remove sourced content, and why was the older one 'better".RotarenegEmem (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Stop editwarring!...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate an answer.RotarenegEmem (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict

Young man 01

Young man 02

I've just removed this. 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, for among his other accomplishments Michelangelo was also a great Italian lyric poet of the 16th century.

This statement is uncited. At the very least it needs reference to something which Michelangelo himself wrote to indicate that he felt "great anguish" and experience a "struggle" between Platonic ideals and carnal desire.

Michelangelo's drawings and paintings of young men are excedingly "straight" for a presumed-gay artist. They are extremely beautiful depictions of young men, and as such are gay icons. But very few could be said to display an obviously gay sentiment or homosexual ethos. There are two notable exceptions: The "dying slave" is languishing in a manner which, like Bernini's "St. Theresa in Ecstacy" could be interpreted as an erotic state.

Among Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel, there is one, just one, which indicates a degree of homoeroticism. Yes, there are naked men in plenty, revealing dicks, butts, and so on. One lad (only one) looks outward at the viewer (a feature of the object of most erotic art). But none look as if they are posing to win the sexual attention of either the artist or the viewer. They are simply being there and being naked.

One young man is not simply being there. He is the fully-dressed young man in one of the lunettes, who by his whole attitude, as well as his shot-satin tights, looks as gay as a tree-full of lorikeets. If you compare him with the much-more-famous ignudi, you will see immediately by his body language that Michelangelo knew how to express high camp, if that was what he intended to do. By the non-camp attitudes of the majority of his figures, one is led to presume that depicting naked males didn't cause him too much trauma at all.

What I am doubting here is not whether Michelangelo was homosexual, but whether it is justifiable to state, without any reference, that his sculpture and drawing indicate an "anguish" and "conflict".

The two excerpts of poetry that have been quoted within the text do not express struggle or anguish. They simply express love, desire and the normal grief of loosing a loved one. I don't read "guilt" into either of these poems. If there are poetic works that describe a "struggle between Platonic ideals and carnal desire" then part of one of those poems needs to be offered to our readers.

As I read Michelangelo's sonnets, the main struggle that he has is to veil his passionate love in the most acceptably Platonic terms, in order to avoid the consequences of possible discovery. Lorenzo's academy had made such supposedly "Platonic" expressions of love in poetry a legitimate art form. But that doesn't mean that the love between the members of the academy was indeed "platonic" (in the modern sense). In fact, between several of its members, including Lorenzo and Poliziano, one is led to believe that the relationship was far from platonic.

If it is the theory of a biographer that the sculptures and drawing express "the struggle between Platonic ideals and carnal desire", then the publisher of that theory needs to be quoted thus:

Sigmund Bloggs stated in his work "Sexual repression and desire in the works of the Great Mick" that the artist's sculpture, drawing and so on indicates struggle and so on."

The base line is, if Michelangelo's sexuality caused him anguish and struggle (apart from the normal grief caused by unrequited love, bust-ups and death) then what is the evidence of this?

Amandajm (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Michelangelo was gay or even bisexual and there's no disputing this fact. He certainly was not heterosexual.100.34.185.220 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, knowledge of Michelangelos sexuality is confined to a small number of individuals. Is it really fair to report that situaton as an indication of a sexual group, if indeed is it not explicitly known as such? Is it not possible to report the situation, yet refrain as far as possible from any casting? Apologies for any inaccuracy or provocation in that suggestion.. ~ R.T.G 01:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

Could you please edit the text under the existing subheading 'Sistine Chapel ceiling, 1505-1512'.

This is the first paragraph of this subheading:

In 1505 Michelangelo was invited back to Rome by the newly elected Pope Julius II and commissioned to build the Pope's tomb, which was to include forty statues and be finished in five years.[40] Under the patronage of the pope, Michelangelo experienced constant interruptions to his work on the tomb in order to accomplish numerous other tasks. Although Michelangelo worked on the tomb for 40 years, it was never finished to his satisfaction.[40] It is located in the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome and is most famous for the central figure of Moses, completed in 1516.[41] Of the other statues intended for the tomb, two, known as the Rebellious Slave and the Dying Slave, are now in the Louvre.[40]

Please change it to this (I have added two additional sentences to the end of the paragraph):

In 1505 Michelangelo was invited back to Rome by the newly elected Pope Julius II and commissioned to build the Pope's tomb, which was to include forty statues and be finished in five years.[40] Under the patronage of the pope, Michelangelo experienced constant interruptions to his work on the tomb in order to accomplish numerous other tasks. Although Michelangelo worked on the tomb for 40 years, it was never finished to his satisfaction.[40] It is located in the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome and is most famous for the central figure of Moses, completed in 1516.[41] Of the other statues intended for the tomb, two, known as the Rebellious Slave and the Dying Slave, are now in the Louvre.[40] In 1506 Michelangelo attended the unearthing of the Laocoön Group, a sculpture that was then bought by Pope Julius II for the Vatican's newly constructed Belvedere Courtyard. It has been suggested that this iconic work of art was created by Michelangelo as a forged antiquity, and that a number of his contemporaries (such as Marco Dente, Jean de Gourmont and Niccolò Boldrini) expressed their doubts as to the sculpture's authenticity through their own imagery, specifically with regards to the pose which is unlike ancient depictions of the Trojan priest. JelbertWalker (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Unable to verify the cite in any journal database or on the journal's own website. Probably issues with blackout dates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

"Please change: "The Battle of Anghiara" to "The Battle of Anghiari" because it is a typo (I am Italian, from Tuscany)"

!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> MEdictate (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done @MEdictate: thank you for pointing this out! The typo has been fixed. I thought at first that it might be a case of English using a different name, but it must just have been a misspelling. --bonadea contributions talk

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

Additional web source to be added:

"Who was Michelangelo," Smarthistory essay https://smarthistory.org/who-was-michelangelo/ Smitherst (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph

There is a typo in the opening paragraph. "Contemporay" should be "contemporary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillasTyrell (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed... Aza24 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Not en expert on adding Wikipedia contents. Could you please add this section, if possible? Many thanks.

Physical appearance In 2021 Francesco M. Galassi, paleopathologist, and Elena Varotto, forensic anthropologist at FAPAB Research Center in Avola (Sicily), have examined Michelangelo’s alleged shoes and slipper preserved in the collections of Casa Buonarroti, in Florence [1], suggesting that the artist was about 1.60 m (5.25 ft) tall [2]. Data corroborate what was already known from contemporary sources: in his work “Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori” (The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects), published in 1550, Giorgio Vasari claims for instance that Michelangelo was “of mediocre stature, had broad shoulders, but was well proportioned with the rest of the body” [3]. Sources: [1] Original paper: DOI:10.26720/anthro.20.02.25.1 [2] https://www.ansa.it/toscana/notizie/2021/08/26/michelangelo-era-alto-1-metro-e-60-prova-dalle-sue-scarpe_f45ec895-27ac-454b-a01c-6b87c6a8ab9a.html [3] Elena Percivaldi, Le scarpe di Michelangelo rivelano la "statura" dell'artista, in BBC History Italia, n. 125 (settembre 2021), p. 32. Rikanas09 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't see this as adding much to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"Saint"

I didn't immediately understand why there is a listing under Wikiproject Saints until I came across an old discussion from some years ago (Talk: May 15, 2011) which indicated that Michelangelo has a commemoration in the Lutheran liturgical calendar. Apparently, he is recognized by both the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS} and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) (the two largest Lutheran groups in the US, who together have over four million members) on April 6, along with Albrecht Dürer and two other artists. [5] (The liturgical color is white.) I agree with Willthacheerleader18 that this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if only to support both the project and the cat listings in case someone was wondering. ---Please note that there was a similar discussion at Dürer on 22 Feb. 2007. It was added to his page under Legacy, where it remained for over ten years until removed with no reason given 15 August 2020. I should think if millions of people remember these individuals in the context of their religious observances, that is a fact worth noting. Manannan67 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Chip-chip-2020 has written, in Wikipedia's voice, that Michelangelo's lover was Tommaso dei Cavalieri. He has also added the categories Category:Queer artists, Category:Gay artists and Category:LGBT artists. (User:Bearcat refined the latter to Category:LGBT artists from Italy.) The usual process of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:consensus has been circumvented. The CUNY academic James Saslow is an expert in this area, with articles, books, etc. Although it's not technically a WP:RS, he's given a Metropolitan Museum interview in 2018 which covers the topic well — balanced and nuanced. Given that, hopefully some sense of proportion can be restored. It's not the first time this has been discussed on this talk page and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just have a look at sources like Zöllner, Frank (2017). Michelangelo 1475-1564 : das vollständige Werk Malerei, Skulptur, Architektur (in German). Christof Thoenes, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Taschen GmbH. Köln. pp. 381–390. ISBN 978-3-8365-3714-8. OCLC 968219328.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) or Bredekamp, Horst (2021). Michelangelo (in German). Verlag Klaus Wagenbach. Berlin. p. 467. ISBN 978-3-8031-3707-4. OCLC 1248717101.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) (the ones you deleted in the article) or „Michelangelo‘s Dream“ by Stephanie Buck (https://courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/michelangelos-dream/). Also interesting: https://medium.com/the-collector/the-vatican-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-this-gay-romance-c6620ab01219Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As explained by User:Johnuniq, these edits are not supported by any sources. No commentary by WP:RS suggests that Cavalieri was a "lover". On the other hand all sources agree that Michelangelo became infatuated with Cavalieri, as described in multiple WP:RS, currently summarised in detail in the article.

I looked at the pdf file for the English version of Zöllner (there is an online source). It is carefully written and does not support a queer-gay-lover hypothesis.

The German book of Bredekamp is not available online and just referring to a worldcat listing is extremely unhelpful. Having the physical book — it's extremely heavy — your reading of "queer-gay-lover" for Cavalieri is not supported by the WP:RS. As in the article, Bredekamp concentrates in great detail on the Michelangelo's four drawings sent to Cavalieri. For the relevant subsection on "Relationships", Brederkamp writes:

″Aus Cavlieiris Briefen und Gedichten spricht eine außordentliche Zuneigung zu Michelangelo sowie ein Gefühlssturm darüber, dass sich ihm einer berühmtesten Menschen der Zeit zugewandt hatte. Zu Beginn ihre Beziehung steigerte sich diese Zugewandthait zu Äußerungen, die eine erotische Seite einschlossen, aber erneut spricht die Bereitschaft, die Briefeund Gedichte zu zeigen und zirkulieren zu lassen, gegen ein Unrechtsbewusstein. Es kann schließich nur festgehalten werden, das zwischen Michelangelo und Cavalieri ein tief empfundene, lebenslang bleibende Verbindung bestand, deren Bekundengen in den Jahren 1532 bis 1534 den Charakter von Liebesbezeugungen desaßen.″

In English translation, that gives:

Letters and poems from Michelangelo to Cavalieri display an extraordinary affection a tempest of emotions unleashed by one of the most celebrated men of his age. At the beginning of their relationship, this affection developed towards declarations that included an erotic side; the fact that Michelangelo's letters and poems were willingly and publicly circulated, however, indicates that he felt no sense of unfairness. In the end, it can only be concluded that there was a deeply felt, lifelong connection between Michelangelo and Cavalieri, which, during the period 1532–1534, was manifested through direct expressions of love.

This seems completely consistent with what all art historians and biographers have written (starting in Michelangelo's era); it is agreement with the summary in the article with its multiple WP:RSs. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Zöllner writes „seinem Geliebten“, Page 389.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As discussed earlier with User:Johnuniq, if an easily available English translation exists, it should be used. Here you have attempted to give a new interpretation of one isolated phrase „seinem Geliebten“. However, the relevant quotation in the English version is here on page 384:

Michelangelo, who almost never adopted a subservient tone towards high-ranking patrons even as a young man, here prostrates himself both before Tommaso as his beloved and towards Tommaso as his social superior. This, too, fell in line with poetic convention. At the same time, however, Michelangelo expresses himself with an unconditional, almost childlike abandon that reflects the state of his emotions, which are here evidently inflamed with love for the first time in his life.

That second passage is very similar to the footnote from the article, quoted in Gayford's WP:RS. The first sentence is very explicit. The phrase "his beloved" applies to Cavalieri, not Michelangelo. Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

16th-century portraits

There are two early 16th-century Italian Renaissance drawings of young men. One is in the British Museum, File:Andrea Quaratesi Michelangelo British Museum.jpg; see the Commons source links to the documentation there. The second is in the Bonnat Museum, File:Italian Renassance drawing of young man Bonnat-Helleu Museum.jpg; see the Commons source links to that documentation. The first drawing is an authenticated 1530 portrait of Andrea Quaratesi by Michelangelo. So far the subject, artist and date of the second damaged drawing have not been ascertained. Vasari's Lives of the Artists, mentioned a portrait of Cavalieri by Michelangelo, but its whereabouts are not known. The second drawing could be a portrait of Quaratesi by da Volterra; alternatively, as suggested in 2003 by the British art historian Paul Joannides, it might be the portrait of Cavalieri mentioned in the Lives. As with the art works of da Vinci, however, these questions of authenticity and attribution are hard to establish with any certainty. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also a section in

• Garrard, Mary D. (2014). "Michelangelo in Love: Decoding the "Children's Bacchanal"". The Art Bulletin. 96 (1). College Art Association: 24–49.

including an extensive discussion of drawings and sculptures connected to conjectured portrayals of Cavalieri (cf figures 23 and 24 – the drawing of an "ideal face" can be found in the Ashmolean and the Uffizi). Mathsci (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we add this famous picture of Michelangelos lover Tommaso de’ Cavalieri to the article? A beautiful drawing by Michelangelo, 1532, Musée Bonnat, Bayonne.

Cavalieris face is also supposed by some scholars to have been the model for some of the caracters in Michelangelos works, like Jesus in the Sixtina.

Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Tommaso de‘ Cavalieri.jpg

@Chip-chip-2020: the images have already been discussed. As has already explained by user:Johnuniq, you have been attempting to add content with one agenda: your own belief that Cavalieri was Michelangelo's lover. However, although Michelangelo is known to have become infatuated with Cavalieri, WP:RSs do not support your own interpretation. You attempted to justify "lover" in two WP:RSs, but in both cases that was a failed verification.

Two images, already linked by me, have already been mentioned in commentary of art historians Paul Joannides and Mary Garrard. The has been described as abraded and damaged of unknown date, subject and artist, possibly a portait of Andrea Quaratesi by da Volterra; possibly of Tommaso dei Cavalieri by Michelangelo. Only you have used the word "beautiful". The tumblr image on Commons is up for deletion, because it is improperly licensed (as a Old Master); a properly sourced, high-resolution image now exists on Commons. The drawing is not famous and most art historians have not yet accepted the attribution of the drawing. A number of your comments are unsupported:

• no art historian, from the 1530s onwards, has written that Cavalieri was Michelangelo's lover (see the section before);
• no art historian, from the 1530s onwards, has suggested that the image of Christ from the Sistine Chapel was supposedly of Cavalieri;
• proposals by art historians for identifying the lost portrait of Cavalieri by Michelangelo, mentioned in Vasari's Lives of the Artists, are ongoing but not conclusive;
• the blogspace posting "The Vatican doesn't want to know about this gay romance" seems to be part of your own activism, not designed to improve wikipedia. It does not seem to be a WP:RS (see WP:RSN).

The current state of the article on Michelangelo, his life and art, seems fine. The section on "Relationships" seems fine. There are not many images in the article and only those of rock-solid authenticity have been included. Adding images of 3D sculptures have always been a problem on wikimedia. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Activism? Well, modern scholarship and renowed scholars have been using wordings like „lover“ for years now, as you can see in the sources (the ones you deleted) for example.

The person on the image (the one you deleted) is identified by Stephanie Buck in „Michelangelo’s Dream“, London 2010, as Tommaso de‘ Cavalieri.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody except you has used the word "lover" in this context. As stated multiple times, when Michelangelo was 3 times older than Tommaso de'Cavalieri, he became infatuated with Tommaso as described in the article and its footnotes; that agrees with what all biographers/art historians have written since Michelangelo's lifetime; the English versions of passages quoted by Zöllner & Bredekamp are also in agreement. User:Johnuniq has already explained the problem with your single purpose agenda to "prove" that Calavieri was Michelangelo's "lover". Your edits WP:BLUDGEON discussion by incessantly repeating the word "lover". So far your edits have shown no interest beyond that single word.

You linked to a worldcat ref for one WP:RS without any explanation. For under £10, I acquired the soft-cover catalogue of the 2010 Courtauld exhibition "Michelangelo's Dream", which contains several essays. It is unlikely that any of these essays (or any peer-reviewed articles) will change matters (e.g. the review by the art historian Jodi Cranston). Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci just not true. You don‘t seem to be up to date: you should read at least the books I mentioned, then you would see that it‘s not „nobody except me“ using the term „lover“. Just one example is Zöllner: „seinem Geliebten“ Then the sonnets about their love… Maybe you also should read some books about it in Michelangelo‘s language, in italian. The word for lover is „amante“.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

All the translations into English have been completed a while back, and they do not support your single purpose agenda. As User:Johnuniq has pointed out, no art critics, starting from Vasari, have described Cavalieri as being Michelangelo's lover; as stated in the article, with copious sources, Michengelo's infatuation with Cavalieri has never been disputed. Repeating time after time, the references (now all in English) is futile. I have the volume of Zöllner which has been translated into English—why then mention the German version? In the case of Bredekemp, I bought the German original; it's extremely heavy. But in summary, there's no indication that Cavalieri was infatuated with Michelangelo; as pointed out in WP:RSs, they belonged to a completely different social class, one was three times older than the other and the younger had a family. If I remember correctly, it's on record that the family supported Michelangelo in his time of need. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

---

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Should we add dates for short description, which is existed on Wikidata. 112.204.220.67 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done per WP:SDDATES. Thank you! ObserveOwl (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the Greatest Artists in History

The opening paragraph omits to mention that Michelangelo is regarded as one of the greatest artists in history. Rembrandt's article, on the other hand, asserts that "he is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art and the most important in Dutch art history". This used to asserted on this page as well, but was probably edited out for whatever reason. And, the high irony is that by comparison Rembrandt is a dwarf to Michelangelo. My contention is the following:

It's common in the English speaking world to adopt a more measured tone toward Southern Europeans when it comes to their achievements, in comparison to their Northern counterparts. There's a similar phenomenon at play in the opening paragraphs of Toscanini and Von Karajan. At one point the introductory passage asserted that Toscanini was one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century; now it asserts something more toned down i.e. "most acclaimed." Just out of curiosity, I went to von Karajan's page, and lo it says "generally regarded as one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century." As it should say in Toscanini's opening paragraph. If anything, Toscanini was greater than von Karajan, by most measures. These biases are probably unconscious by the majority Northern European descent folks who write these articles, but you may like someone to point out that they're there.

One can say, well, it's just bunch of Northerners hyping up their own kind. One can let the kin-selective imperative pass here and there, but not to such a systematic degree. So please, be consistent with these superlatives. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt if it is that. There is a huge prejudice on WP against making "peacock" claims, & most Wikipedians would far rather potentially mislead the reader by omitting such claims. I don't think M needs the point making anyway. We should never call anything or anybody "acclaimed" (or "renowned" either) - just unencyclopedic journalese. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. Plus the current descriptions ("his work had a major influence on the development of Western art," "one of the best-documented artists of the 16th century", "several scholars have described Michelangelo as the most accomplished artist of his era") actually provide meaningful and specific content. Having "Michelangelo is regarded as one of the greatest artists in (Western only, by the way) history" is extremely vague and does not give the reader actual substance to digest. Aza24 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec)There is scant evidence of systematic Northern bias; e.g., the lead section of Leonardo da Vinci has this: "Leonardo is identified as one of the greatest painters in the history of art and is often credited as the founder of the High Renaissance". Toscanini's description as "one of the most acclaimed and influential musicians of the late 19th and early 20th century" is the equivalent of "one of the greatest" but more explicit. Nor is the present article bereft of superlatives. It cites scholarly opinion for Michelangelo being not "one of" but "the most accomplished artist of his era", "supreme in not one art alone but in all three", and credits him with "two of the most influential frescoes in the history of Western art". Ewulp (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Focus on the examples given. The statement needs to be put in the introduction to Michelangelo and cited, period. These responses are so supremely lacking and defensive. Don't talk so much, and get the work done. Remove the bias.

"Having "Michelangelo is regarded as one of the greatest artists in (Western only, by the way) history" is extremely vague and does not give the reader actual substance to digest"

That's what you say when it comes to Michelangelo, then in turn are likely to defend the same statement at the very forefront of a middling painter like Rembrandt. Address the discrepancy, which is the very point of my comment. Wikipedia is full of basement dwellers who can't even think consistently. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. Articles are shaped by local consensus; what's in Rembrandt does not determine what must be in Michelangelo (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). Ewulp (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

and I found something wrong Adamishere11 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Mapeh

(Italian: [mikeˈlandʒelo di lodoˈviːko ˌbwɔnarˈrɔːti siˈmoːni]; 6 March 1475 – 18 February 1564), known as Michelangelo (English: /ˌmaɪkəlˈændʒəloʊ, ˌmɪk-/[1]), was an Italian sculptor, painter, architect, and poet of the High Renaissance. Born in the Republic of Florence, his work was inspired by models from classical antiquity and had a lasting influence on Western art. Michelangelo's creative abilities and mastery in a range of artistic arenas define him as an archetypal Renaissance man, along with his rival and elder contemporary, Leonardo da Vinci.[2] Given the sheer volume of surviving correspondence, sketches, and reminiscences, Michelangelo is one of the best-documented artists of the 16th century. He was lauded by contemporary biographers as the most accomplished artist of his era.[3][4] 112.198.114.59 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Works Michelangelo (Main Page) La Pieta

I noticed that one of Michelangelo’s earlier pieces was not added in his “Works” section, only a picture and small description of La Pieta is displayed on his main page. I actually found that La Pieta has its own Wikipedia page, but I did not understand why it is not necessarily emphasized on Michelangelo’s page. I understand that Michelangelo was not the original creator of La Pieta, but his version is the most well known. La Pieta was one of Michelangelo’s most significant pieces, which is why I was surprised that so little was discussed of it on his own page.

Renaissance artist, Michelangelo Buonarroti, sculpted La Pieta in 1499 when he was only 24. La Pieta was not originated by Michelangelo, but his was and is most well known. Michelangelo’s La Pieta is currently located in St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. The sculpture is made of marble, and is 68.5 inches tall and 76.8 inches wide. La Pieta is know for its beauty and grace. It is known for its religious symbolism. With La Pieta Michelangelo isolated and signified the aspects of Virgin Mary holding in her arms the body of Jesus Christ after he was taken down from the Crosse after the Crucifixion. La Pieta is currently a global icon.

Before Michelangelo Buonarroti was known as a painter, after he painted the Sistine Chapel, he was known as a sculptor with his works such as La Pieta and the statue of David (1504). Michelangelo originally sculpted La Pieta for French cardinal Jean de Billheres, who was at the time a representative of Rome. It was originally made for Billheres’s funeral, but is now located in a chapel of the 18th century, St. Peter’s Basilica.

The Pieta is indeed dealt with in this article Amandajm (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling question: Ludovico or Lodovico?

I noticed a discrepancy in the spelling of Michelangelo's fathers' name. It appears as both Lodovico, with an o, and Ludovico, with a u. While scanning through some biographies about Michelangelo, I saw that some used Lodovico, while others used Ludovico. Michelangelo: His Epic Life by Martin Gayford notes that Lodovico is

A variant of Ludovico. In sixteenth-century Italian, as in English, names are apt to vary from modern forms. Thus Leonardo was generally Lionardo, and Michelangelo signed himself Michelangiolo. In this book the older forms are sometimes used for reasons of clarity. Thus the Buonarroti family members are Lionardo, but not Leonardo da Vinci

Does this mean either spelling can be used interchangeably? If so, should that be noted in the article? Flipped script (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

St Peters Basilica

This article states that Michelangelo designed the west end of the basilica, but the basilica article states that he designed the east end.

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica

So which is correct? Jozsefs (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) § Requested move 6 January 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) § Requested move 6 January 2024. Should Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) be moved to Medici Chapel, Medici Chapel (Michelangelo), New Sacristy or Sagrestia Nuova? Ham II (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

I see multiple Grammer errors and false information. Gracegotgyatt371 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)