Talk:Horse and Rider (wax sculpture)

Removal of sourced information

Sourced and notable information on the attribution of the sculpture and sales of replicas was removed from the article with the summary of "contrary to fact" and "unsubstantiated foreign language".
Wikipedia allows non-English sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility. The opinions of the single historian previously cited in the article carry as much weight as those of the others; they should not be removed. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. More sources and the requested substance for both viewpoints would be useful. I have reverted the removal and expanded the article from those and further sources.
On making corrections to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Instead of removing information, please consider adding your points of view instead, based on reliable and verifiable sources. Tradernet and Jwpetty1951, I believe you might be in a position to get a reliable source to publish something to help with that. --Felcotiya (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect and fallacious content in bronze section

There seems to be some information that is either outdated or simply false in the description of the Bronze recast of the original wax sculpture. Have done much research and speaking with the owners of the mold I am confident that there were not 1000 recasts ever made. No mold is able to perform that number of casts by itself. It would require access to the original to make another mold and that was simply impossible.

As such I am reverting the Bronze section to state the facts as they exist today. --Tradernet (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to that will need to be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Removing the info altogether would be controversial, as the media have been citing the limited edition of 299+299+299+99 casts for the last three years without correction. --Felcotiya (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A section on the bronze replicas keeps on getting removed,[2] due to a plan allegedly not working out. What is the issue there? The article does not say that 1000 recasts were made. The "fruition" of a plan isn't particularly relevant; replicas were still sold as part of a limited edition. Judging by an earlier removal of exhibitions from the article, some of those replicas have also been exhibited as "the original". That's all notable isn't it? --Felcotiya (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased edits

@Jwpetty1951: You have a declared and documented financial connection to the subject of this article. This constitutes a conflict of interest between your and Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia editors are expected to write articles from a neutral point of view, however in this edit you have:

• Removed mention of criticism of the model's attribution to Leonardo when exhibited in Boston (Zerner, Holmstrom, Yemma, all 1997)
• Removed mention of criticism of the model's attribution to Leonardo when a replica was exhibited in Milan (Perugini, Bravi, ANSA 2016, Panza, Gatti 2017)
• Removed mention of criticism of the model's historical record (Moffatt 1990)
• Removed mention of replicas being exhibited and sold
• Removed the disambiguation hatnote, where the title of the article refers to more than one subject

Edits of that nature make the article biased, and labeling them as removal of incorrect information does not reflect well on the intentions of the editor. Can you please find sources to support the claim of the article having "non-relevant, dated, and incorrect information"? --Felcotiya (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

History section copyright violation

While reading some reference material, I noticed paragraphs that had been copied verbatim to this article. The copying was done in 2014 here, and the content has since been moved to create this article. An immediate source is several issues of Carlo Pedretti's ALV Journal from the 90s (links in the article), but the original source is probably something earlier than that. I've removed the text, retaining the references, and rewritten it with just the facts. --Felcotiya (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Same issue for the main photo of the article: According to Lewis, it's from the book published for the exhibitions in the 90s. If you have any information about it, please contribute at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leonardo Da Vinci Horse and Rider.jpg. --Felcotiya (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of the word "original"

In previous revisions of the article, there are multiple mentions of an "original sculpture". The use of the word in the context of Leonardo da Vinci is extremely misleading. After reading through all the references, the language copied from press releases can only be a reference to the bronze cast from 2012, but that's certainly not obvious. Any replicas created 500 years after the artist's original sculpture are not originals in any stretch of the word. Wikipedia should not use language from press releases. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. --Felcotiya (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Addressing COI issues

I and others created this page after reading about the sculpture in the local Las Vegas newspaper. I researched and contacted the parties cited in the article for first-hand information. It was I who suggested to JWPetty1951 that he should maintain the page as I had little time to make corrections or updates. I can assure you that there is no conflict of interest by myself or JWPetty1951 in creating and maintaining this article. Tradernet (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Assessing character of critics

User:Tradernet keeps adding[3] a slur to the article about an art critic who's not convinced about the attribution to Leonardo. What is the relevance to this article? Despite Sgarbi's colourful persona, the Italian media continues publishing his views on art, and both Marani and Cardini seem to be sharing his opinion. Should we also repeat the fact Jwpetty added[4] to the Carlo Pedretti article, that Pedretti incorrectly attributed a 20th century work by Riccardo Tommasi Ferroni to Leonardo? Neither belongs here until a reliable source makes the connection about their "character". --Felcotiya (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

User:Felcotiya User:SamHolt6 User:Bri The Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci) Wikipedia page was first created by Wikipedia editor User:Z22, February 4, 2014. Z22 referenced information found in a myriad of news articles written in 2012, about the emergence of a previously unknown (outside of Leonardo scholars) sculpture said to be attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. The newspaper articles referenced and cited by Z22 were pretty much the only information available to the public at that time. Articles written in 2012, reflected the history of the mold made of Leonardo’s equestrian wax model c. 1506-11, and the bronze cast from that mold. In fact, if the mold and bronze had not been made public in 2012, Leonardo’s wax model would still be unknown today.

As the online encyclopedia of the world, Wikipedia is about verifiable truths and facts. The Horse and Rider Wikipedia page should be solely about the known provenance of the wax model, ending with the provenance of the bronze, including exhibition history of either piece, public or private. Today, four years after the page was first created, a great deal of new information has become known about the provenance of the wax model as well as the history of both the mold created in 1985 and the bronze cast 27 years later. As the historian for Silverpoint Holdings LLC, (current owner of the mold, bronze and all original documentation concerning their creation) one of my duties is to update and/or revise the page, as my research turns up new information.

On Feb 9, 2017, when Felcotiya made his/her first edit on Horse and Rider, I immediately sent a message thanking ‘them’ for their interest in Horse and Rider suggesting we might collaborate on our research of Leonardo’s wax model. I told him/her who I was, including my real name, email address and my motivation to create a first-class page for Horse and Rider. To date, I have not received a direct response from Mr/Ms Felcotiya. On the contrary, hiding behind his/her Wikipedia ‘handle’, Felcotiya continues to escalate his/her vilification of the Horse and Rider story. Over the last 16 months, Felcotiya has succeeded in creating a confusing, conflicting and often irrelevant page by referencing outdated, or even untrue articles. When citing legitimate sources of information, he/she often takes a sentence out of context, to make a claim that is contrary, from what the author of the reference intended. Felcotiya has incorrectly translated from Italian to English, articles which again, take on an entirely different meaning from what the author intended. All the while, he/she has accused me of “copyright infringement, conflict of interest, biased edits, misleading the reader and character assassination.” If there is a “feud” being waged on the Horse and Rider page, it is a one-sided feud perpetuated by Felcotiya. Reverting from one edit, back to another and vice-versa has resulted in a page in disarray and is a hodgepodge of often incorrect and irrelevant citations. I prefer not wasting more time defending my position as the ONLY un-biased historian for Horse and Rider.

A solution to this ‘mess’ maybe to scrap the page altogether. I would then commit to rebuilding the page, citing only published, documented research by expert Da Vinci, Renaissance, and art history scholars, as references. FACTS ONLY. --Jwpetty1951 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1B80:ACB0:21DE:5D39:B10:86C (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jwpetty1951: You cannot continue involvement in the replica sales and at the same time attempt to write a Wikipedia article from a neutral point of view without it being wholly one-sided. You can however suggest changes on this talk page, and thank you for jumping onto that. Is there anything specific that you object to in the article? Based on your most recent revert[5], it must be

• Not linking external biographies - If someone is not notable enough for Wikipedia, they do not get a link. See Wikipedia:External links.
• Cardini's doubt on the attribution - The Perugini source says in the "Doubt on attribution of the work" section that "Cardini has some doubt on the historical aspect of the work".
• Yemma's statement from 1997 about nothing supporting the attribution in the Boston exhibition - This must be what's being referred to as outdated? What new evidence is there? Are there sources for it? Either way, it stands as commentary on the exhibition, although it would be good to find more coverage if anything else was published that year.
• Coverage of the replica business - Large part of the publicity the work gets is on the sales and exhibition of replicas. Artencounter talk about limited editions and quantity discounts in the same sentence.

If there are any reliable published sources that aren't cited in the article yet, then please do let us know. --Felcotiya (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)