Talk:Venus and Mars (Botticelli)

Attribution

In June 2010, this article was recreated to remove a foundational copyright problem with the importation of content not cleared through Wikipedia's donation processes. The content was contributed by the following users. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

* (cur | prev) 07:43, 20 June 2010 MER-C (talk | contribs | block) (2,911 bytes) (copyvio) (rollback | undo) * (cur | prev) 17:51, 13 June 2010 Phoampiper (talk | contribs | block) (7,363 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:07, 12 June 2010 68.101.70.178 (talk | block) (7,332 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:06, 12 June 2010 68.101.70.178 (talk | block) (7,330 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 23:06, 7 June 2010 Verne Equinox (talk | contribs | block) (7,131 bytes) (image from Commons) (undo) * (cur | prev) 23:03, 7 June 2010 Verne Equinox (talk | contribs | block) (6,998 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 204.49.181.241; Unhelpful changes. (TW)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:04, 2 June 2010 204.49.181.241 (talk | block) (6,999 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:55, 1 June 2010 Citation bot 1 (talk | contribs | block) m (6,998 bytes) (Citations: [Pu158]+: url. Tweaked: publisher. You can use this bot yourself! Report bugs here.) (undo) * (cur | prev) 19:46, 27 May 2010 Tsinfandel (talk | contribs | block) (6,931 bytes) (Undid revision 364523847 by Tom Hulse (talk) NOR) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:38, 27 May 2010 Tom Hulse (talk | contribs | block) (6,536 bytes) (Undid revision 364473877 by Tsinfandel (talk) incorrect plant ID, see Discussion page) (undo) * (cur | prev) 12:52, 27 May 2010 Tsinfandel (talk | contribs | block) (6,931 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 00:39, 24 April 2010 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,536 bytes) (robot Modifying: it:Venere e Marte) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:53, 3 January 2010 Una Smith (talk | contribs | block) m (6,549 bytes) (Robot-assisted disambiguation: Myrtle - Changed link(s) to Myrtus) (undo) * (cur | prev) 09:18, 30 December 2009 TXiKiBoT (talk | contribs | block) m (6,542 bytes) (robot Adding: br:Venere e Marte (Botticelli)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 16:53, 29 December 2009 Rjhuttondfw (talk | contribs | block) (6,507 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 16:52, 29 December 2009 Rjhuttondfw (talk | contribs | block) (6,375 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 16:47, 29 December 2009 Rjhuttondfw (talk | contribs | block) (6,476 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 08:32, 8 August 2009 Ponkywatts (talk | contribs | block) m (6,375 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 23:21, 30 May 2009 Locobot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,374 bytes) (→References: WikiProject Check Wikipedia (Fixing breaks in lists)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 06:01, 31 March 2009 Fogodragon (talk | contribs | block) (6,386 bytes) (changed Ecphrasis to correct plural ") (undo) * (cur | prev) 08:28, 20 March 2009 83.209.3.207 (talk | block) (6,376 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 21:56, 17 February 2009 Citation bot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,376 bytes) (Citation maintenance. Added: doi, volume. Formatted: pages. You can use this bot yourself! Please report any bugs.) (undo) * (cur | prev) 17:13, 20 November 2008 Robertgreer (talk | contribs | block) m (6,340 bytes) (Quick-adding category "Paintings of Venus" (using HotCat)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 06:03, 12 November 2008 Onlim (talk | contribs | block) (6,308 bytes) (Undid revision 250506389 by 76.29.219.82 (talk)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 20:57, 8 November 2008 76.29.219.82 (talk | block) (6,330 bytes) (→Notes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 04:15, 8 September 2008 SilvonenBot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,305 bytes) (robot Adding: fi:Venus ja Mars) (undo) * (cur | prev) 11:49, 30 August 2008 Ginosbot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,284 bytes) (robot Adding: pl:Wenus i Mars) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:43, 25 June 2008 Thijs!bot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,264 bytes) (robot Adding: ca:Venus i Mart) (undo) * (cur | prev) 17:38, 1 May 2008 MelonBot (talk | contribs | block) m (6,244 bytes) (Expanding redirect) * (cur | prev) 02:50, 24 April 2008 Katierob88 (talk | contribs | block) m (6,236 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:52, 8 March 2008 90.192.70.181 (talk | block) (6,234 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:23, 25 February 2008 194.83.242.250 (talk | block) (6,238 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:15, 28 November 2007 Remember (talk | contribs | block) (6,223 bytes) (→References: add template) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:00, 7 October 2007 66.74.57.119 (talk | block) (6,207 bytes) (→References) (undo) * (cur | prev) 21:55, 5 September 2007 72.214.5.135 (talk | block) (6,280 bytes) (→References) (undo) * (cur | prev) 22:25, 18 August 2007 Colonies Chris (talk | contribs | block) (6,205 bytes) (sp, date & link fixes using AWB) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:27, 4 August 2007 Steve 33025 (talk | contribs | block) m (6,204 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:24, 4 August 2007 Steve 33025 (talk | contribs | block) m (6,203 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 14:22, 4 August 2007 Steve 33025 (talk | contribs | block) (6,201 bytes) (Added more on possible sources for the painting) (undo) * (cur | prev) 23:20, 23 June 2007 Attilios (talk | contribs | block) m (2,899 bytes) (sthg) (undo) * (cur | prev) 13:24, 11 June 2007 Neddyseagoon (talk | contribs | block) (2,884 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:39, 20 May 2007 91.127.69.148 (talk | block) (2,909 bytes) (corrected the word satyrs that was originally written incorrectlly as "satrys") (undo) * (cur | prev) 01:38, 9 May 2007 24.176.223.89 (talk | block) (2,909 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 20:32, 6 May 2007 Joanenglish (talk | contribs | block) m (2,908 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 21:45, 23 April 2007 AlleborgoBot (talk | contribs | block) m (2,874 bytes) (robot Modifying: it:Venere e Marte (Botticelli)) (undo) * (cur | prev) 02:10, 11 April 2007 Jpbowen (talk | contribs | block) m (2,881 bytes) (Added category) (undo) * (cur | prev) 22:34, 26 January 2007 Art LaPella (talk | contribs | block) (2,853 bytes) (wikify) (undo) * (cur | prev) 22:26, 26 January 2007 Art LaPella (talk | contribs | block) m (2,792 bytes) (Mars the god, not the planet) (undo) * (cur | prev) 22:51, 8 January 2007 213.94.237.188 (talk | block) (2,775 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 17:06, 7 January 2007 Charlie fletcher (talk | contribs | block) (2,769 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:06, 20 September 2006 Sailko (talk | contribs | block) (2,771 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:06, 20 September 2006 Sailko (talk | contribs | block) (2,770 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 18:50, 2 June 2006 Ham (talk | contribs | block) m (2,729 bytes) (Category:Collections of the National Gallery, London) (undo) * (cur | prev) 17:48, 5 May 2006 132.239.16.74 (talk | block) (2,672 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 15:59, 25 April 2006 219.77.137.238 (talk | block) (2,671 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 05:30, 16 April 2006 Redeagle688 (talk | contribs | block) m (2,644 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 01:42, 12 April 2006 24.90.136.241 (talk | block) (2,626 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 11:21, 5 April 2006 212.203.11.146 (talk | block) (2,639 bytes) (undo) * (cur | prev) 00:56, 5 January 2006 207.81.122.212 (talk | block) (2,626 bytes) (Fixed some typos) (undo) * (cur | prev) 04:51, 20 December 2005 Commander Keane bot (talk | contribs | block) m (2,633 bytes) (Robot-assisted disambiguation (you can help!): Italian) (undo) * (cur | prev) 19:16, 19 November 2005 SimonP (talk | contribs | block) m (2,627 bytes) (Category:Botticelli paintings) (undo) * (cur | prev) 11:13, 3 November 2005 Attilios (talk | contribs | block) (2,669 bytes)

Sections

The article could usefully be divided into sections. It aids reading and allows a coherent structure to be maintained when additions are made. Tsinfandel (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Datura flower

Thank you Tsinfandel for the interesting info & article link on the supposed Datura plant in Venus and Mars. I do have to revert the edit though because it was a gross misidentification of the plant in the painting. Datura (and especially D. stramonium) are known as the thorn apples because of their very deeply thorny seed pods, as can be seen in Brugmansia & Datura by Ulrike & Hans George Preissel, pg 124; and also here is a link to many Google images of these seed pods: Datura stramonium. The leaves in this painting, too, are really nothing even similar to Datura or Brugmansia. Also, Datura stramonium are endemic to the southeast of North America, and would not have been spread to Europe until well after Christopher Columbus' voyage in 1492 (same reference), however Botticelli's Venus & Mars was painted c. 1483. Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

this edit violates NOR see discussion on Datura stramonium page. Tsinfandel (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the continuing discussion on reliable sources for this subject at the Talk:Datura stramonium page, I would like to remove this paragraph, but I'll wait for comments. Verne Equinox, do you think the partial picture you added is still relevant without that newest paragraph on Datura stramonium still in the article? Tom Hulse (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion about an infobox in this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article have an infobox?

This article was originally started with an info box but that was subsequently deleted by an editor, with the curious observation that the infobox "detracts from the painting", when the article was substantially in its present state, and which editor had contributed nothing previously to the development of the aticle and went on to make only a few techical edits of the same nature. By contrast the info box had survived a number of substantial contributing edits by another user who has a close working relationship in the Visual Arts project with the deleting editor.

The arbitration committee has recently published findings on the issue of infoboxes, of which notably was found that there ought to be a discussion for each individual article in the absence of a global policy.

I request such a discussion now.

Especially I would really like to know how an infobox "detracts" from a thumbnail of a painting. This thumbnail points to a very beautiful high resolution image of the painting held on Commons. Of course it's pleasant that you can see a reduced image of the painting in the article and it serves a purpose as reminding us what the image actually is, but most users wishing to enjoy the image will immediately click through to the high resolution image held on Commons.

The frank impression I have is that the editor who deleted this infobox sees the article in some way as beautiful in itself. Well, that's frankly extremely silly. I'm not sure there isn't something of a hoc fecimus claim involved as well. But of course we know editors give up copyright, and to claim moral rights simply isn't tenable. Ironic to observe that the image itself is (claimed) to be in the public domain. In this case we aren't given a source but it's almost certainly the National Gallery (London). Unlike its Washington counterpart this gallery doesn't put their digital reporoductions in the public domain, you have to poy good money for them. I have no idea how much it charges for its high resolution images, I should think a lot. On the most optimistic interpretation of the circumstance, what we have here is a philanthropist who has acquired the image and "gifted" it to Wikipedia, who may reproduce it with impunity essentially because in US copyright law "mere labour" can't be copyrighted. Quite a lot of other people might well, on the contrary, simply think the image stolen.

I should think the time for the National Gallery to challenge that are long past. But if it were still possible to mount a credible challenge, then Wikipedia's case I should imagine would be much strengthened were these thumbnail images provided soley in the context of an infobox in an encyclopaedic article and not as a reproduction adorning a web page as our deleting editor plainly thinks it should be.

I really would like to see a convincing argument for not having an infobox in this article. No doubt Wikipedia will one day develop metadata for art objects. In the meantime infoboxes provide a useful half-way house. In particular there are fields for catalogue numbers and gallery URLs that would be awkward to incorporate otherwise. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons already stated several times on several artices with several incarnations of this editor. I note the implied treath and bullying, and frankly partonising nature of the proposal. Meta data bla bla - nice try at trying to deflect at Jack, Rinpoche. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a pointer to where I can find your views, please? I mean I simply don't know your views. I did note that you were editing at this article while it did have an infobox. I am really trying to understand why an infobox detracts from the painting. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure! [1] Ceoil (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't make your views known there. You did make your views known here. You said you preferred not to use infoboxes in visual arts projects because artists were not a species and couldn't be defined by them and because it was preferable for the lead in an article to have two images. You also said you couldn't see why wikiprojects shouldn't have authority over articles under their own remit: I take that to mean each article should be discussed on its own merits, as indeed I think there ought to have been here.

Regarding your two objections, you had a fortnight before deleted the infobox at Caspar David Friedrich here. The information deleted was his nationality (German), his field (painting) and his movement (German Romantic). Of course we artists everywhere can only be flattered at the reverence we are accorded by the Visual Arts project, that we are indeed supraspecies, Übermenschen of high culture above mere societal norms, but I can't see that nationalities, fields and movement are something that cannot be defined without degrading our utter wonderfulness. Nor can I see why, if there are to be two images in a lead, why one of them shouldn't be in an infobox.

I mean I think there are some valid objections to the over enthusiastic use of infoboxes. Johnbod makes a very good point about those lists of represenative works (who decides?) while I'm equully suspicious of 'influences'.

But what is at stake here is an aesthetic issue. Precsiely why does an infobox detract from a painting? Your colleague Modernist assented to your removing the Friedrich infobox only reluctantly. Yet within 11 minutes of editor X posting their disappoval of the infoxbox at Roger's Portrait of a Lady he removed it. You yourself were editing here comfortably when the article had an infobox. I can't see either of you in the circumstances are really commited to X's point of view in the circumstances.. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apart from anything else, with a picture of this format either the image would be far too small or the box ridiculously wide. It might be ok below the image, but not many of the usual factoids are actually certain. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Its moot now anyway as Rinpoche ‎ has retired, again[2]. Victoria was only ever the intended target here, for shame. Ceoil (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• What? This is silly. Have an infobox separate from the image so as to not distort it. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't really see the point in arguing over this. Without any compelling arguments either way, I guess I favor the (new) status quo, which is no infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Venus and Mars

Well if that what its called now, wouldn't be unopposed to a page move back. I made the last move based on non-NG and perhaps dated sources. Fantastic work here recently. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have strong views. The NG was evidently calling it "V&M" before Lightbown et al were using "M&V" (which Reitlinger does also in 1961) so I think both could be called current & ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If I was to call it, I'd go for the NG V&M; Venus is the more active participant - Mars is sleeping, from google it seems it was long know as V&M except for a bit; plus V first sounds better (ILIKEIT). If thats ok, we'll need a helpful admin. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure - ladies first! Go for it. At one point it was known as "Mars Sleeping", perhaps from the von Bode idea that Venus was a vision. That may be how it started. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, all by myself. Either there was a further dab after my last page move, or I now somehow have admin powers. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Venus and Mars National Gallery.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Venus and Mars National Gallery.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 1, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Venus and Mars is a panel painting of about 1485 by the Italian Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli. It shows the Roman gods Venus, goddess of love, and Mars, god of war, in an allegory of beauty and valour. Probably intended to commemorate a wedding, the painting was likely set into panelling or a piece of furniture to adorn the bedroom of the bride and groom. The painting has been held by the National Gallery in London since 1874.Painting: Sandro Botticelli