Caravaggio was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Visual arts C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Template:Vital article Template:WPCD-People

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

The proper title for this entry is Caravaggio with a dab at top about Caravaggio, Italy and a note about Caravaggio (movie) below. That's the NCP (normal cultural perspective). Wetman 23:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I almost didn't find the page because of the odd naming. This should be the default page for "Caravaggio", with the disamb linked from it. Mpolo 10:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. For now, I've moved the disambiguation page from Caravaggio to Caravaggio (disambiguation), and made Caravaggio in a redirect to Michelangelo Merisi. If noone complains about this, an administrator can move this page to Caravaggio later. Eugene van der Pijll 13:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I object. I think that Caravaggio should certainly be a redirect here (with a note on this page saying caravaggio is also a town and movie. But that the main article should stay here at Michelangelo Merisi, since that was after all his name. The bellman 08:26, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I think it's more than a little pretentious, to be frank. --Wetman 00:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we please be a bit more mature about this issue. It is not sufficient to argue that something is "unencyclopaedic". And if neutrality is disputed then we need to be absolutely clear why. I'm aware that we've gone round and round with the issue but I think we need to be content that we are making decisions soundly and in a balanced manner. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What emerges from the bodies" is a subjective, unencyclopedic POV. The previous version is terse, to the point and all-inclusive.Galassi (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a well-written para on the sexual liminality (ok, I made that word up) of Caravaggio, but it would have to be better written than the current suggestion. I think it would have to concentrate not on the question of C's own sexuality - which is unanswerable on the current evidence available to us - but on points some critics have made since the 70s. Frankly I don't see the point of claiming C, or anyone else, for gaydom - he was a great artist, and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the offending passage on "what emerges from the bodies". Is that the only bit which you view as not neutral? If it was then it would have made more sense to take it out rather than revert the whole section. I actually think this passage captures the issues well. I agree (talk) that he was a great artist and is of interest for all, but don't see a problem with setting out briefly the homoerotic aspect. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to objective information from scholarly sources, by scholarly i mean respectable, reputable, mainstream art historians, not the first random view of an obscure person or a controversial minority idea proposed by someone random. the scholarly literature on Caravaggio overwhelmingly makes it clear that this is a minority position. Please do not rewrite history. We must stick to the facts and what the scholarly records show. Otherwise wikipedia will never be taken seriously by academicsBaroqianbliss (talk)

It's not random and obscure to mention the homoerotic ambience of Caravaggio's early paintings - it's been mentioned/discussed by important scholars since the 1970s. My concern is rather with the way it's handled. We shouldn't be just making a case that Caravaggio was gay - nor that he was not. The correct thing to do is to simply note the scholarly interest in this aspect of his work. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo, you have repeatedly deleted documented evidence of his heterosexual liaisons. That increasingly looks like POVpushing.-Galassi (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you are mistaken. The problem is that each time you take out the section that I wrote, I revert to what I originally wrote, but it then misses out your inclusion of Lena. I absolutely agree this should go in - it's one of the few documented relationships as you say. But that said, we really shouldn't see this as was Caravaggio "homosexual" or "heterosexual". These are modern terms, and a bit simplistic. We should probably regard issues of sexuality as relatively fluid at that time - sleeping with or having attraction for men or women as the situation presented itself (and indeed in a framework proscribed by cultural patterns and secular penalties). It's clear though that today nearly every work written about Caravaggio refers in some way to the sexuality issue - interest has gradually grown over time and we need to reflect this; and I feel it's not actually covered particularly well in the rest of the article yet I'm afraid. It's also unfair to say this is of minority interest (although I appreciate it may sit awkwardly with those that approach his art purely from a religious or devotional perspective). It is of importance for 4 reasons: (i) it tells us about Caravaggio the man; (ii) tells us about his art, what drove him to paint the pictures and why they were painted; (iii) tells us about the historical trends of a homosexual sub-culture for those interested in LGBT history; and (iv) tells us about how such themes in the art has influenced those up to the modern day - ie poetry and cinema. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion about how we phrase this but am absolutely convinced that we must say something. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy destructive reverts like that are clearly disruptive, and seriously undermine your case. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo does not engage in POV pushing? Let's take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herman_Melville&diff=331648961&oldid=331142151. Note both the first edit as well as his. This needs no explanation. Editors who engage in this type of editing are likely to or should be banned. I noticed a few more examples, but one should suffice. --Baroqianbliss (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo is right, practically every modern work on Caravaggio mentions the homoeroticism of his work. This is rather different from the issue of the sexuality of the man himself, which I think is unknowable and irrelevant, but it's notable. PiCo (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not. Caravaggio's work in no more homoerotic than the work of any of his contemporaries. It was just better executed. Calvesi, among others, said so.Galassi (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can sense there is a bit of a clique here but I think the point still worth pursuing. Johnbod - you accuse me of "lazy destructive reverts". I haven't been lazy. I have repeatedly drawn on evidence to make the case, but have not been able to have a rationale debate with some contributors. Galassi - you say there is no homo-eroticism in the works. Are you serious - what is your understanding of homo-eroticism? PiCo has made a sensible and knowledgable intervention on this issue, and I think you should take serious note of what PiCo says. Baroqianbliss- you make a serious accusation against me. I do not push any POV. My edits are based on reasoned argument and evidence. If you believe this isn't the case then I would like you to cite specific examples as to where you think I have shown bias or misused evidence. You may do so on my talk page should you so wish. The example you draw from Melville demonstrates I think that I was calling for sensible debate based on evidence and discussion and not personal prejudices. I do not expect everyone to agree with the edits I make, but I take offence at accusations that I have acted in bad faith.

In consideration of this article I have carried out some further work to see what is written on the issue. I looked at 4 works - Robb, Langdon, Puglise, and Wilson-Smith. (1) Wilson-Smith accepts that C. "early works has led to discussion about his sexuality". He mentions the libel trial of 1603 where he was said to have had a boy-lover but charges were not pressed. But argues that this should be disregarded as a late source. He considers the influence of Del Monte in commissioning the pictures but argues that homo-eroticism was present before Del Monte became patron (eg Bacchus); and suggests that this was a period in which classical revival had led to a deliberate interest in bisexuality, reflected in contemporary artwork. Although the penitent magdalen shows C. appreciation for the female form. He mentions Lena as C. woman which led to a fight.

(2) Langdon mentions the accusation by Richard Symons of 1649 of the model for cupid lying with C. She notes that sodomy was punishable by death, but was perceived as an Italian vice by many foreigners. Notes that C. mixed with whores. Argues that it was unlikely that a cardinal of the church would have flaunted a gay artist's lover on his wall (thus problematic for the cupid).

(3) Robb considers again Del Monte's influence and notes that suggestions of Del Monte's sexuality are based on a count who in 1620s noted that he displayed more than a paternal care for the boys in his charge. But also sets out that Del Monte reminisced of women he had courted when young.

(4) Pugliese notes only conflicting evidence on C. can be called on the painter's sexuality from early sources. He did not marry and had no children. He also sets out the story in Messina when C. was chased by a teacher for following some youths.

All this suggests that the issue of sexuality is not marginal or fringe but rather an issue considered by mainstream and reputable commentators. But also demonstrates that it is not easy to draw clear conclusions either way. I would argue that the text I had in place set out the nuances of this position without going into too much depth. Yet I would be happy to have a proper discussion about how we sharpen (and let's avoid making it personal shall we). But to leave out completely is simply baffling and I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be. What we have at the moment is simplistic and frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. The suggestion that this is all in the mind of "1970s gender study" writers is misleading if it were not so laughable. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this discussion 10 days and want to try and build some consensus before making changes. What we have at the moment is wrong. I can only imagine that "gender studies" was put there by someone who thinks that homosexuality is about those confused about their gender. And I have no idea where the 1970s figure was plucked from. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only noticed yr addition to this thread today. Just a few quick comments and explanations: (1) Be vary careful using Robb, his reputation among scholars isn't all that high; (2) the 1970s date is based on the appearance of Donald Posner's "Caravaggio's Early Homo-erotic Works" in Art Quarterly in 1971 - this is frequently cited as the beginning of the study of Caravaggio's sexuality; (3) I agree with your saying that many modern critics mention the homoerotic content of Caravaggio's work, and I feel that in the article it's our duty to reflect any major currents in scholarship - but I don't agree that we should be discussing Caravaggio's own sexuality; (4) "Boy Bitten by a Lizard" is filled with homoerotic symbols that would have been obvious to educated audiences in Caravaggio's day, although today things such as lizards and flowers are simply lizards and flowers - in fact Caravaggio painted in a language of symbols and allusions that have largely been lost to modern audiences. I'll be away for a week and won't take any further part in this discussion. PiCo (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame as you're the only editor on this article who seems to know what they're talking about. Please come back soon to inject a bit of common sense to this debate. Baroqianbliss's latest intervention seems to be to cut out a huge chunk of text on homo-eroticism in art for no apparent rhyme or reason? Which Galassi has supported on the grounds that it is "tendentious". Whatever that might mean?!

Thanks for clarifying the 1970s point - makes sense now, although the reference to "gender studies" remains baffling. The only issue on which you and I diverge is whether we should be more explicit about his own sexuality. While I accept we cannot give a definitive answer, I think it is fair to put up a clear marker. Not least as I open the Observer newspaper this weekend and read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/10/james-hall-caravaggio-rome

One of the first paras is "Several were commissioned by a cardinal who, like the artist, may have been a pederast, while others were acquired by another cardinal (the pope's nephew) who was probably homosexual". I accept it doesn't bring more proof to the debate but demonstrates that the issue of his sexuality is fairly commonplace and in the mainstream debate. I'm also surprised that we can't agree to include a reference to Derek Jarman - who directed the only biopic film I know of the subject in English. Extraordinary.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am staggered that someone can claim that changing "homo-erotic" to "homoerotic" is a misrepresentation. Have I missed something - are they two different things?! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hiphen is not part of the issue. The problem is in your inserting modifiers that were not in original referenced textsm such as CONCLUSIVE. This is simply dishonest and tendentious it isclearly designed to give undue weight to your "homoerotic" agenda. - Galassi (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do fear that you're being a little disruptive on this - perhaps there is an issue around your use of the English language, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you want to revert the edits I've made then I suggest you provide a convincing argument to do so: (i) that linking to the article on homoerotic is substantially different from including the word homo-erotic (with no link) and is directed towards bias; (ii) that "conclusive documented evidence" is substantially different in meaning from "clear documented evidence". and (iii) that the insertion of "may refer to Del Monte's tastes" rather than "refers to Del Monte's tastes" is misleading, particularly where the same source talks about Del Monte pursuing women in his youth (and thus allows for a measure of doubt). Can I also suggest you refrain from calling my actions "dishonest" and talking about an "agenda" unless you can back that up.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Galassi. This is a busy time for me with grading and other paperwork, but if I had the time I would systematically go through Contaldo80's past edits and bring up a case for having him banned from Wikipedia. From my brief perusal a few months ago, I quickly saw enough to warrant more thorough investigation. Previous editors have been banned for similar offences. It's not that he is writing on themes of homosexuality which is a worthy cause in itself. It's his consistent attempts to skew the evidence and placing undue weight that seriously compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Not only does this undermine Wikipedia, it undermines the attempts of editors of integrity who bring greater awareness and understanding to topics of sexuality as those familiar with the issue at hand, in seeing stuff such as this on the Caravaggio article, may be inclined to treat all other text of a similar nature on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. If this does not resolve itself naturally or if someone else does not take action, I may be motivated to reserve some time in middle to late summer to collect evidence for Arbcom or another appropriate body. That is something I would much prefer not do so I ask Contaldo80 politely to please desist from this type of editing. You have so much to contribute but this is not the best way to go about it. --Baroqianbliss (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, I could write a nice long entry of, oh, five or six paragraphs, based entirely on scholarly works, just to discuss the debate over homoeroticism in C's work. I'd take into account, for example, the overtly sexual symbolism in the early paintings, the identity of the model/assistent Cecco and his relationship with C, the evidence from the Baglione court documents (the bardassa named there is rather more substantial a reference than Lena), and, Oh, I don't know, I could go on and on, a whole article really. OR, alternatively to THAT, you could kindly put back the two sentences you took out from the main body of the article. PiCo (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Calvesi - BARDASSA=CASINO=WHOREHOUSE=MESS/MESSY PERSON, not a catamite. So substantial it is not.-Galassi (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This particular whorehouse, casino and mess was named Giovanni Batista. Why not put my two sentences back and save us all a lot of trouble? PiCo (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because claiming that GB had any role in C's life would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -Galassi (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what it says about those two policies. WP:OR means you can't carry out original research - getting something from a secondary, scholarly source isn't OR; and WP:SYNTH means you can't put two unrelated pieces of information together and derive from them a meaning which neither contains (doesn't apply here because there's only one source). Why don't you just put those two sentences back? PiCo (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Lena/Pasqualone affair, just a few minor points to clarify: notably, the court documents don't allege that Caravaggio was living with Lena - it's well established that Lena at this point was lodging over a certain greengrocer with whom Caravaggio was having a quarrel, while he himself was living elsewhere. While Calvesi is of course a reliable source in the most general sense, he makes some mistakes regarding this incident - better to go to Puglisi.PiCo (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've just about covered the documentary evidence for C's sexuality, so let's move on to the paintings. Are you sure you wouldn't rather put those two sentences back?PiCo (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been away from this for so long but returning to the issue I have a couple of things to say. Firstly, thank goodness for (PiCo). PiCo's comments are always meticulously researched, arguments well reasoned and edits sensible. That is more than I can say for others. Wikipedia asks that we assume good faith in terms of editors and their edits. But I'm afraid that I have little confidence that many of the editors on this page actually know anything at all about the subject of Caravaggio; and give the distinct impression of knowing very little of what they are talking. Even the latest biography on Caravaggio in English concludes that it is most likely he was "omnivorous" in his sexual tastes. My final comment is reserved for Baroqianbliss and his commendable exercise for the summer on exploring whether I might be banned from editing. I hope this work is progressing well and have three words: Bring it on. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo, your misrepresentation of the Puglisi citation just might do that.-Galassi (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the Puglisi again but I doubt your inference of deliberate misrepresentation would stand up. I am, however, completely baffled by your continued desire to edit out huge chunks of sourced text giving no justification at all - other than that you believe it to be conjectural. If you want to believe that Caravaggio was 100% heterosexual then please go ahead and believe that - it doesn't seem to be that anything will change your own mind, but you cannot let that interfere with ensuring objectivity and balance in the article. The case is simply not clear cut. I have not said that he was homosexual - that is an achronistic term in this historical context - but the majority of writers today do discuss homoeroticism in his paintings and look to see if that is reflected in some way in his own life. To leave that out and imply that Lena was his "girlfriend" is actually to risk drifting into deliberate misrepresentation. Let's engage on this like adults and discuss the evidence.Contaldo80 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe half of what I see, per M.Twain's dictum. Therefore the only reliable sources apropos are the Pasqualone deposition and the Maddalena di Paolo testinony. The rest are speculations, if not outright poppycock.-Galassi (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasqualone calls Lena "Michelangel's woman"; but what's this deposition by Lena herself? I can't find anything. PiCo (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the Puglisi monograph. But is is uncertain whether Lena and Maddalena are the same individual. The latter is an unequivocal "intimate friend" of C. -Galassi (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't see anything in that book about Lena/Maddalena saying anything during the Pasqualone affair. What statement are you referring to? PiCo (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entirely separate matter~, dated 1604. Nothing to do with Pasqialone.-Galassi (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little evidence for any sexuality on Caravaggio's part. There are the references to Lena as his "girl" or "woman", and he certainly kept very questionable company (Fillide and other high-class prostitutes). There is equally circumstantial evidence that he had sexual relations with boys - the "bardassa" reference (and bardassa did mean boy prostitute, although it had other meanings as well), and the reports of his relationship with Cecco, and the incident in Sicily, and of course the "battle of the artists", the paintings Baglione made in which Caravaggio features as a satyr in the company of a boy, which is a clear accusation. None of this is conclusive. My belief is that Caravaggio himself would tell us to go mind our own business, and that's certainly my own attitude - this discussion is the equivalent of sniffing bicycle seats. But it IS valid to talk about the sexual/erotic dimension of Caravaggio's art - not his own sexuality, that of his art. This is what I would support. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we'd be on an even flimsier, and very VP:COATRACKish (that is really about a particular reviewer, not C.) ground, decidedly unencyclopedic. And besides - this would limit our consideration to a rather minute percentage of his works.-Galassi (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo - I respect your views on C's private life but we have to accept that this is of some significance and of interest, particularly to those trying to understand the history of sexuality. C.'s sexuality is a matter for discussion by mainstream historians, and has been for many years. We may find it distasteful perhaps but it is valid. MeanwhileGalassi's assertion that the homoeroticism of the art is of minute significance really reinforces my view that Galassi does not understand the period, the person or the issue. I notice from the edits to the Donatello article that there is a dislike of any talk of homosexuality full stop (and I really hope this isn't evidence of stalking). Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 further biographies yesterday to add to this. The first by Gilles Lambert writing for Taschen (Germany) says "the evidence suggests he [C] was sentenced in Malta for what we would now term paedophilia" {p7); he discusses the taste of Cardinal Pucci (C.s patron) for young boys, and argues that the bare shoulder and flower behind the ear in the Boy Bitten by a Lizard identifies the sitter as a prostitute (p32); he argues that the winged cupid in The Musicians "emphasises the homo-erotic character of the painting"; he also believes that the Victorious Cupid was designed to parody the sculpture of Victory by Michelangelo thus trying to "out him" (p69); he talks about hostile historians that imagined C. had attempted to seduce the young son of a local magistrate and thus was imprisoned in Malta (p85). A separate biography by Timothy Wilson-Smith (Phaedon) explicitly refers to discussion by historians of C.'s sexuality whereby they have looked to the paintings as evidence. Enough please of arguments that the paintings cannot be seen as homo-erotic, and that this is overall a fringe issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sgarbi - the Malta arrest was for "insulting the Knight of Justice". You'd need a primary source for the Lambert claim.-Galassi (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected 2 errors of fact in the "private life" section, because they demonstrably are errors of fact. But I don't like the section at all. Private lives are private. I cold support something on homoerotic strands in his art, but even that would be putting an emphasis where one does not belong - he didn't spend all his time painting sexual cyber-works. PiCo (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo, this is what Puglisi says on line 3, p.199 of my edition: "In fact, she may be one and the same as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti, who by her own testimony named Caravaggio as an intimate friend in 1604."-Galassi (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that on p.199 of my edition. In mine, the top of p.199 is a continuation of a paragraph that begins on the previous page, and is discussing the Pasqualone episode. It's talking about Passeri's version of the story, and says that Passeri says that Caravaggio was talking revenge on Pasqualone for impugning his (C's) behaviour with Lena. It notes that Passeri defends Lena's honour ("poor but honourable") and then notes that Passeri was probably wrong, as she was usually to be found standing around the Piazza Navona in the evenings. It concludes by saying of this Lena that "she may be one and the same as as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti." Since the index lists only one entry for Lena/Maddalena I don't think it's on some other page. It's a 2005 paperback reprint of the Phaidon edition of 1998. So mine is similar to yours, but different enough to look like a different edition.PiCo (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is a hardcover, 448pp.-Galassi (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same number of pages. But is yours a 2nd edition? Mine is apparently a 1st, and I can't find any sign on the internet that there's been a second. It's odd that the texts should be so close yet different.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says "First published in 1998". No actual date, but it does look like a second edition. Maddalena+C is also cited elsewhere.-Galassi (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article doesn't once mention the homoeroticism of his paintings is ridiculous. (I guess that's what happens when a Wikipedia article is simultaneously of gay interest and religious interest.) Caravaggio's male figures are usually scantily clad and sensuous, but his female figures never are. That's an objectively observable fact, and it's one of the many notable things about his paintings. 99.255.30.114 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As far as Caravaggio's sexuality is concerned, I would like to point out two things.

1) Sources mention Caravaggio having a relationship with Lena, a prostitute "che sta in piedi a piazza navona" (i.e. "who stands in Piazza Navona") (see Prof. Stefania Macioce's book Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: fonti e documenti, 1532 - 1724, Rome: Bozzi, 2003, p.167.);

2) From the minutes of the 1603 libel trial we know that this is what Tommaso Salini stated: He told me that [the poem] was by the aforementioned Michelangelo and Onorio and that he got it from one of Onorio and Michelangelo's bum boys whose name is Giovanni Battista and who lives behind the [Via dei] Banchi [Vecchi]. The translation is my own.

As specified in an academic article I published a couple of years ago, 'bum boys' is a modern English approximation of the original bardassa, a synonym of bagascione (a pejorative of whore) which was used to label boys who adopted passive roles in homosexual encounters (see the Vocabolano degli Accademici della Crusca, Venice, 1612, ad vocem "bardassa"). The minutes of the 1603 trial are at the Archivio di Stato di Roma, Tribunale criminale del Governatore, Processi del XVII secolo, vol. 28bis, ff. 398-401r.

In conclusion, and if any of this really matters, according to documentary evidence I think we can state with reasonable certainty that Caravaggio was not homosexual, but bisexual. Regards, --Ricercatrice81 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a specialist in Arts, but a lover of Caravaggio's painting. I found that the following BBC's article is a very interesting opinion. I would like the main editors of the Wikipedia article on Caravaggio to consider including a sentence, or a brief paragraph, regarding the claim of the researcher Roberta Lapucci, "who is a teacher at the prestigious Studio Art Centers International in Florence". Pmronchi (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. We do need to strengthen the section about his techniques. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lapucci released some of her publications online at robertalapucci.com maybe that could be a good starting point to integrate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.30.22 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go to an exhibition of Carvaggio's works, or read a book or article about him without hearing mention of his sexuality. And yet here on wikipedia, nothing - not a whisper. It is incredibly bizarre. Can we not agree some form of words to reflect the academic discourse. It seems intellectually dishonest not to. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because we're not trying to sell anything? Equally I never read a comment of yours that isn't about somebody's sexuality. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "not trying to sell anything"? What is meant by that? Are you suggesting that including material relating to Caravaggio's sexuality is purely aimed at "selling" a particular form of sexuality? Or that you think I am showing bias by "selling" a particular form of sexuality? And why exactly do you think the best approach to respond to a perfectly reasonable discussion point by me is to complain that you "never read a comment that isn't about someone's sexuality"? In what way is this relevant? To what extent is personally abusing me a mature way to carry out a discussion? I don't just make edits relating to issues of sexuality and homosexuality. But do you know what, even if I did, who cares? What possible business is it of yours to tell me what edits or issues I should show an interest in? Provided I observe the guidelines and rules and strive to show balance and objectivity then I am doing nothing wrong. Or perhaps you're making an accusation that I do not show objectivity or balance? If I want to improve coverage of issues relating to sexuality and homosexuality then that is my prerogative. If you are uncomfortable with talking about issues relating to sexuality or homosexuality, then don't expect others to share your personal hang ups. I am frankly surprised that an editor who claims to have made so many edits to articles over so many years would respond in such a way as you just have. "Assume good faith" - have you? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit yourselves to talking about how to improve the article, and not about other editors - as that is never fruitful. If you have a WP:RELIABLE source which discusses Caravaggio's sexuality, then it may be worth including in the article with deference to due WP:WEIGHT. (Hohum ^@) 18:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources. I agree it isn't productive to spend time attacking other editors, and my intention above was to start an honest debate about a particular issue which I feel will enhance the article if tackled properly. But if I am insulted by another editor for no apparent reason, then I will respond. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the emphasis on his sexuality and criminality in popular marketing for books & exhibitions on Caravaggio is largely commercially driven. You can edit how you like, but risk being seen by others as a one-issue editor. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less if I'm seen as a one issue editor - what's it got to do with you and the debate on this article? Perhaps I should save myself trouble and stick to editing unthreatening content around porcelain shepherdesses, and tapestries with unicorns chasing antelopes? I don't doubt that stories of sex and murder capture the public imagination, but that doesn't mean that we have to leave them out of the article! The fact that Caravaggio killed a man and went on the run is pretty central to the themes and execution of his later art. The fact that he saw beauty in men as well as women is likewise noticeable and significant. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will find and add a source. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are loads of sources. I'd start with Andrew Graham-Dixon's recent biography on Caravaggio - which gives good consideration to the issue. There is also Jonathan Jones's new book, "The loves of the artists" with a chapter on Caravaggio. If you want to go back a couple of years then there are obviously Helen Langdon and Peter Robb. There are also academic journals which could be referenced, aside from frequent discussion in exhibition catalogues. I think the consensus was that Caravaggio had female and male lovers. There is not total agreement on whether homo-erotic elements are evident in his art - some believe strongly it is, others than he was responding to what patrons wanted, and Graham-Dixon believes some of it deliberately refers to Michelangelo and needs to be seen in the context of counter-reformation spirituality.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you rely on reliable biographers / historians for Caravaggio's own sexuality, art historians for how sexuality is expressed in his art art, being careful not to synthesize the two. Commentary in exhibition catalogues doesn't seem valuable to me, compared to high quality sources. (Hohum ^@) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking that line, the biographers will provide little to go on as, unlike his criminal escapades, whatever sex life he had is almost entirely undocumented, so you are left with inferences from the paintings. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true - research has moved on in this area a fair deal since the 1960s. Nor do I take the point about art exhibition catalogues being low quality. You'll often in fact find that they offer some of the best written stuff with essays by leading academics in both history and art history (although here I'm thinking only of the leading art galleries). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the sources, suggest the edits based on them. I doubt you will get an auction catalog past vetting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Hohum ^@) 15:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tolarify again. I am talking about exhibition catalogues, and not auction catalogues. I agree the latter are not suitable. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Contaldo here, & I think you would (you certainly ought to), but he is talking about fat collection or exhibition catalogues from top museums here, which as he says are certainly RS. Caravaggios hardly ever appear at auction anyway. I have no objection to a brief summary of scholarly views, but given the article is pretty short for an artist of this significance, and, despite what Contaldo says, the actual evidence for anything pretty thin, WP:UNDUE needs always to be kept in mind. The precedent of Leonardo da Vinci and others here is not encouraging. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod, I agree with you I think we can keep it short. There's no definitive answer to his sexual orientation, and I accept that the surviving documents can be interpreted in different ways. Nevertheless my original point was that it's odd that the issue of sexuality is dealt with in practically every other article/biography about Caravaggio, yet we maintain a stony silence here. Readers will expect to see at least a reference; otherwise I fear we're being intellectually dishonet in not wanting to recognise something which is pretty standard fare.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the inclusion of the dodgy sexuality para, as it is all based on rumors, and admits to the inconclusiveness. It is also utterly useless in understanding of Caravaggio as an artist. I own several monographs on Caravaggio and all of them agree that the accusations of sodomy are baseless. this cherrypicked POVpushing is totally inappropriate here.--Galassi (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can present a mature argument as to why the material should not be included then it stays in. I don't know what "monographs" you have but I'm guessing that the majority of them must be from before the 1930s in the way that you claim that all this stuff is "dodgy". It's also your view that it is useless in revealing anything about Caravaggio the artist. There are more distinguished academics than yourself who would disagree. And even if it tells us nothing about his art, the information still relates to his biography. Try and be a bit more grown-up will you Galassi. The material is relatively short, focused, well-sourced and not-fringe. If you want to make a complaint then I suggest you take it to the relevant arbitration board.Contaldo80 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the article says about Mannerism being considered inadequate for the purposes of the Church is incorrect. In fact, many mannerist artists such as Cavalier d'Arpino were still very sought after even after 1600, that is after Caravaggio's success with the Contarelli Chapel. Not to mention that such an arguable statement re Mannerism is not footnoted and/or bibliographed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricercatrice81 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caravaggio was a gay homosexual - this should be mentioned in the article about him or at least add 'homosexual artists' category--24.203.108.54 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we can't be certain of Caravaggio's sexuality, it is odd (on the verge of embarassing) that this article says nothing at all. A conspiracy of silence? I propose to work something in, and I think we should base it around the art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon's recent biography. This makes a couple of observations:

• "A lot has been made of C. presumed homosexuality, which has in more than one previous account of his life been presented as the single key that explains everything, both the power of his art and the misfortunes of his life. There is no absolute proof of it, only strong circumstantial eviddnce and much rumour. The balance of probability suggests that C. did indeed have sexual relations with men. But certainly had female lovers. Throughout the years that he spent in Rome he kept close company with a number of prostitutes. The truth is that C. was as uneasy in his relationships as he was in most other aspcets of life. He likely slept with men. He did sleep with women. He settled with no one... [but] The idea that he was an early martyr to the drives of an unconventional sexuality is an anachronistic fiction" (p4).
• "The sensual and sexual appeal of such youthful, smooth-skinned figures as the coquettish, music-playing angel in The Rest on the Flight, or the angelic ministrant to St Francis, has been taken as evidence of the painter's homosexuality. The truth is not straightfroward. C. was capable of being aroused by the physical presence of other men. He could not have painted such figures in the way that he did if that were not so. But he was equally attracted to women, as certain other paintings from the late 1590s such as St catherine of Alexandria plainly demonstrate" (p150).
• "C. painting suggests an ambiguous sexual personality. On the evidence of his paintings he was neither heterosxual nor homosexual, terms that are in any case anachronistic when applied to his workd. He was omnisexual".
• "...he is unmistakably a portrait in caricature of C, caught in flagrants with a flushed and furtive cupid. Baglione's Divine Love went beyond satire. It was a visual accusation of sodomy. Baglione repeated that charge verbally, and in public. He and his friends talked openly about C keeping company with a bardassa - vulgar Italian slang.. for a young man who took the female part in sexual encounters with other men. Rome's artists gossiped so people may have begun to look at C Omnia vincit amor in a different light. The identity of the boy who had modelled for Cupid with known. He was Cecco di Caravaggio, who prepared the artists' paint and his canvases. If Baglione was to be believed, not only was he C. assistant and model he was also his catamite."
• "He was known to be an impetuous man who followed his passions. he kept company with whores and courtesans such as Filide menlandroni and on the evidence of his paintings he was equally alive to the charms of men. C. and Francesco Boneri, alias Cecco, were close; Cecco stayed with him even after he was obliged to leave Rome in 1606. There is a good chance that the runours were true and that C did indeed have a sexual as well as a working relationship with 'his owne boy or servant'. Whatever the reality, baglion'es accusations were damaging and dangerous. Sodomy was a capital crime in Clement VIII's Rome and though the authorities were unlikely to investigate the well-conneced C sexual behavious, as long as he was reasonably discreet, the potential harm to his name and prospects were immense. Once an artists had been smeared as a pederast, his work was smeared too."
• "Having seemingly implied that the schoolteacher was accusing C of an indecent interest in his pupils, Susino himself assets that the painter's real motive for following the boys was artistic...It is no means inconceivable that he should have sought companionship even sexual solace, in the company of young men. Susinno's anecdote might even help to explain one of the most enigmatic and homoerotic paintings.. his last depiction of St John the Baptist". p412
• The Cerriglio [wher C stayed] was especially popular with men seeking sex with other men".

Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Seems like an awful lot of conjecture based on rumors. Maurizio Calvesi is of the opposite opinion. Calvesi, a native Italian speaker, gives BARDASSA the translation of a MESS, or UNCOUTH, not a sodomite.--Galassi (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be a bit more mature shall we Galassi. Only in your world is the sexuality of Caravaggio a controversial issue - it is raised in almost every single biography, biographical article, biographical programme/ film, and public exhibition guide. If you want to bring an administrator to arbitrate this then fine, but I'm fed up of playing a games which potentially have a political aspect. I'm acting in good faith and I'm assuming good faith in your edits. But it would help if I had some reassurance from you that you are comfortable with the issue of homosexuality and are able to deal with material relating to the issue objectively and with neutrality ( - perhaps you can point to some previous edits, for example, that you have made covering the issue of homosexuality?) Andrew Graham-Dixon offers one of the best recent biographies of Caravaggio in English and is by no means fringe or at the radical end of the art-history spectrum; and yet to dismiss his balanced and considered opinion at the click of a mouse based purely on your opinion that the matter is of no significance. And taking the Calvesi point (as if being Italian is of any relevance for interpreting the language of 16th century documents!) are you seriously taking the position that Baglione was reporting Caravaggio for keeping company with an "untidy young man"?! It may surprise you but I can also read Italian. I would suggest taking a look at this web article which gives umpteen examples of where bardassa was used in the early modern age to describe the passive partner in a homosexual sexual act: http://www.giovannidallorto.com/cultura/checcabolario/bardassa.html In any case, the point is irrelevant. Strong consistent sources make the point in support of bardassa as a male prostitute. I'm not interested in interpreting the sources ourselves. If you want to add a line that adds Calvesi contrary opinion then I can live with that - weak though it seems to me. Can I also point out that Calvesi published his work on Caravaggio 25 years ago. I like to think academic debate has moved on somewhat since then. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored second reversion. If you want to argue WP:WEIGHT then please do so. But seeing as a number of biographers have indicated that sexuality was the prime motivator for his art and is of supreme importance when discussing his life, I'm not hopeful for you. Andrew Graham-Dixon deals with issue at good lenghth in his biography and starts by saying "A lot has been made of Caravaggio's presumed homosexuality" - not that you'd know if you just read this article as some editors don't like discussion of homosexuality. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS - the guidelines that consensus should be sought where possible but should not take precedence over good quality material (WP:BE BOLD). In any case, this thread suggests that at least one other editor agrees with me - that sounds like majority consensus (not that that is something that should really drive out edits).Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Declined due to lack of thorough discussion between both parties per instructions on the main page. It seems the one side has not yet fully presented their arguments and will be thus hard to provide a 3rd Opinion. Feel free to repost this later. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks Ugog Nizdast. I understand where you're coming from. Looks like there's little we can do until we have engagement from individual editors disputing the material. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi if you revert the material on sexuality again then I will make a formal complaint to an administrator. You have done nothing to argue that the material is POV. It is taken from mainstream and respected academic sources. Be clear EXACTLY what in your opinion violates NPOV. Your argument about consensus is spurious also - it is not required for all edits but I have not seen a "consensus" supporting your arguments either. Your suggestion that it is not notable or given UNDUE weight is simply laughable. And I do have to question whether you actually know anything about the article you are editing? I have read about 10 works on Caravaggio and attended countless gallery exhibitions and read articles in journals and magazines. Ever since Sussino Caravaggio's sexuality has been a point of discussion. If you want to bury your head in the sand then please do; but don't expect the rest of us to do it. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must seek consensus, which is not a vote, but a mutually agreeable version. You POVpushing is not helpful to the article. You've been doing it for years, and it wouldnt wash.--Galassi (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With whom - Galassi - am I to seek consensus? With you? You're not interested in any discussion at all. For you the issue of Caravagio's homosexuality is out of bounds. Fine if that is your personal opinion. But you have to demonstrate that wikipedia rules have been broken by including this material. You have failed consistently to do that. If you think arbitration is needed then please go and seek it - I have already made the offer. Wikipedia is an open platform - we are all allowed to contribute to articles if those edits meet the guidelines. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi I don't think we've getting anywhere with this. I add material on sexuality and you just remove it, I restore etc. I have already suggested that we try and seek mediation for this - to see if we can find a middle way. Earlier I suggested that we seek an impartial third opinion, to advise us on what might be sensible. Are you prepared to accept that mediation? Or are you just going to take out the material again? In which case I'm afraid there are probably good grounds to indicate that you are being deliberately disruptive. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caravaggio never married and had no known children, and Howard Hibbard notes the absence of erotic female figures from the artist's oeuvre: "In his entire career he did not paint a single female nude."^[1] On the other hand, the cabinet-pieces from the Del Monte period are replete with "full-lipped, languorous boys ... who seem to solicit the onlooker with their offers of fruit, wine, flowers - and themselves."^[2] Nevertheless, a connection with a certain Lena is mentioned in a 1605 court deposition by Pasqualone, where she is described as "Michelangelo's girl".^[3] According to G.B.Passeri this 'Lena' was Caravaggio's model for the Madonna di Loreto. According to Catherine Puglisi 'Lena' may have been the same as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti, who named Caravaggio as an intimate friend by her own testimony in 1604.^[4][5] Caravaggio also probably enjoyed close relationships with other "whores and courtesans" such as Fillide Melandroni, of whom he painted a portrait.^[6]

Since the 1970s art scholars and historians have debated the inferences of homoeroticism in Caravaggio's works.^[7] The model of "Omnia vincit amor" is known as Cecco di Caravaggio. Cecco stayed with him even after he was obliged to leave Rome in 1606, and the two may have been lovers."^[8]

Aside from the paintings, evidence also comes from the libel trial brought against Caravaggio by Giovanni Baglione in 1603. Baglione accused Caravaggio and his friends of writing and distributing scurrilous doggerel attacking him; the pamphlets, according to Baglione's friend and witness Mao Salini, had been distributed by a certain Giovanni Battista, a bardassa, or boy prostitute, shared by Caravaggio and his friend Onorio Longhi. Caravaggio denied knowing any young boy of that name, and the allegation was not followed up.^[9] Baglione's painting of "Divine Love" has also been seen as a visual accusation of sodomy against Caravaggio.^[6] Such accusations were damaging and dangerous as sodomy was a capital crime at the time. Even though the authorities were unlikely to investigate such a well-connected person as Caravaggio: "Once an artist had been smeared as a pederast, his work was smeared too."^[8] Francesco Susinoo in his later biography relates the story of how the artist was chased by a school-master in Sicily for spending too long gazing at the boys in his care. Susino presents it as a misunderstanding, but Caravaggio may indeed have been seeking sexual solace; and the incident could explain one of his most homoerotic paintings: his last depiction of St John the Baptist.^[10]

The art historian, Andrew Graham-Dixon has summarised the debate:

A lot has been made of Caravaggio's presumed homosexuality, which has in more than one previous account of his life been presented as the single key that explains everything, both the power of his art and the misfortunes of his life. There is no absolute proof of it, only strong circumstantial evidence and much rumour. The balance of probability suggests that Caravaggio did indeed have sexual relations with men. But he certainly had female lovers. Throughout the years that he spent in Rome he kept close company with a number of prostitutes. The truth is that Caravaggio was as uneasy in his relationships as he was in most other aspects of life. He likely slept with men. He did sleep with women. He settled with no one... [but] the idea that he was an early martyr to the drives of an unconventional sexuality is an anachronistic fiction.^[8]

• I'd support the text above (added here by Contaldo I presume). We should certainly say something. You could ask for more opinions at the Visual Arts project. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO we should include the above...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the current cherry-picked shape, ignoring opinions to the contrary. Per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT a number of other things. For starters it completely ignores Maurizio Calvesi's research. And the section is disprortionately large for NPOV.--Galassi (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "research" is the right word for Calvesi's opinions. This remains a sensitive issue in Italy, like the Greeks with 300 (film). No, it isn't too large. Though if we could stop arguing about this eternally, and improve the rest of the article, things would be better. Just deleting all mention puts you in a weak position, frankly. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi can you perhaps deal with your personal hang-ups about homosexuality, rather than to repeatedly project them onto this article. The text is not "cherry picked" nor does it contravene NPOV nor is it excessive. The sexuality of Caravaggio is dealt with again and again and again by authors, frequently at great length. I don't understand what is to be gained by trying to pretend there is no discussion or that the matter is irrelevant?! The sources quoted are mainstream, the information balanced and to the point. That even Calvesi talks about it suggests that its a subject worth talking about!! And Calvesi is hardly recent in any case.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ive google-mapped the where all known Caravaggio paintings are situated globally https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z24asHdRfrvA.k11-JXzdDn6s Shouldnt this be on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio ? Have a GREAT day! John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John bau 123456 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Caravaggio. 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/20090416123558/http://www.italica.rai.it:80/index.php?categoria=bio&scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte to http://www.italica.rai.it/index.php?categoria=bio&scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020071907/https://www.fbi.gov:80/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/caravaggio to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/caravaggio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316185329/http://www.fbi.gov:80/hq/cid/arttheft/europe/italy/italyart.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/arttheft/europe/italy/italyart.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001449/http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e21-passion-cvgg.pdf to http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e21-passion-cvgg.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002442/http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e4-cvgg-velz.pdf to http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e4-cvgg-velz.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413211634/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl:80/formats/container_remcar_en.html to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/formats/container_remcar_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]