Talk:Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci

Approach to scientific investigation and Condensed biography

The text under Approach to Scientific Investigation and Condensed biography is terrible in some places. I may be missing something, but I think the following paragraph under scientific investigation should be removed: "As a researcher, Leonardo divided nature and phenomena into ever smaller segments, concretely with knives and measuring instruments, intellectually with formulas and numbers, to wrest the secrets of creation from it. The smaller the particles, runs the assumption; the closer one will get to the solution of the enigmas." This reads as very non-factual and not fact based, but I may be missing something here. Perhaps this part should be turned into a quote? Could whoever wrote it fix it? Additionally, the section titled Condensed Biography seems unescessary and unrelated to the article. Mrmola (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alas, the real issue is that probably not a single paragraph in this article is of an actual of value! The sourcing of course, is virtually absent, particularly from the biography section you point out that I've now removed. This is one of those cases where snippets have been thrown together over the years by anonymous editors, resulting in a hodgepodge of low quality. Aza24 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My contribution deleted: Anamorphic and Psychological Zenith of the Self Portrait

@Ewulp:

Dear Ewulp

The first time you cancelled the contribution you cancelled both Baltrušaitis and White. I wonder if you ever had a chance to actually read them. On another note, I saw you sometimes referred to yourself in the plural. I wonder if you are a single person or a collective, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, as you may know. In which case I wonder if your contributions would be considered invalid. In case you represented a plurality of art copy editors, a bit weird considering the not so high level of your intervention, I feel compelled to remind you the blatant conflict of interest. About the policies, if you define Leonardo da Vinci a primary source, and I refer to the quote concerning the monstrous figures and their anamorphic rendering, the philological reconstruction by Apocalypse Pictures becomes secondary and the article in Rinascimento.io magazine a tertiary source. In any case it is an empirical observation, following an extremely rich frame of sources and bibliography, it cannot be defined an original research. If instead you consider the philological reconstruction of Apocalypse Pictures a primary source, Leonardo and Rinascimento.io would become secondary sources, confirming the foundation of the observation. As for the use of anamorphosis in Leonardo, there is no possible discovery, since, as demonstrated over and over in time, it was a topic widely discussed since 1400, as can be seen in the bibliography. The description is not copied and the references are taken from the books owned by Leonardo himself. No original research here. Images, descriptions, notes on Leonardo’s library are linked to the pure empirical observation of what has been known forever: Your comments seem to lack competence and are not linked to the logic of Wikipedia, being your personal opinions. BeRenaissance (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither Baltrušaitis nor White ever alleged that the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk contains a hidden werewolf. "I saw you sometimes referred to yourself in the plural", you say. Diffs, please. As for WP:COI, isn't Rinascimento.io your own website? You appear to confirm that here. Are you using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise your own "discoveries" of secret werewolves? Please disclose whether you have a connection with Apocalypse Pictures, which does not seem to be a recognized authority on Leonardo. Ewulp (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)