Talk:Mona Lisa/Archive 1

message: Hi,
I did quite a few copy edits tonight. I removed the vague, nonsensical (and unsupported) comments on aesthetics that had been inserted twice -- once in the intro, and once in the section on aesthetics. I moved up the explanation of La Gioconda to the intro from the section on the identity of the model. I collapsed the two different references to Lisa Gherardini into a single reference, and linked it to the Da Vinci comment (any source for that?) and noted that it could easily have applied to one of the other 2 Da Vinci portraits of women -- Lady With An Ermine and Ginevra di Benci. Am happy to change if anyone can provide a reference indicating that it definitely applied to Mona Lisa.
I also trimmed back the long, new paragraph on a recent theory of the identity of the model from an avid German self-publisher in Adeliade. I reduced it to the basic theory, but am not even sure it should be given space in the article given that it was most likely inserted into the article by the author herself, and she is not a university-affiliated researcher of good standing.
Also various other grammar fixes and readability improvements, plus removal of links to pages that aren't in the Wikipedia.
mjlodge 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit of 14 March 2005 

message: How much is the painting insured for? Is this information public? Edward 21:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value 

message: In the interests of keeping the to-do list as brief as possible, I've moved Shibboleth's comments here:
*I haven't been able to find the insurance information on the web despite quite extensive searching.  I would guess it's not public. --Shibboleth 01:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from todo list 

message: Hey if the Italian name of the Mona Lisa is La Gioconda, who coined the English name of the painting? Was da Vinci fluent in English and therefore coined the name himself, or did someone else did? If so who? -anon
:Read the article. --Cantus 19:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
::And yet it is not mentioned in the current version of the article --WhiteDragon 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone vandalised it. Section restored. Paul B 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of Isis and Amon in the Title section of this article is a reference to the idea proposed in the Da Vinci Code which lacks credibility based on the simple fact that Da Vinci never named the painting Mona Lisa, regardless of the many other reasons why it is a ridiculous assertion.  It seems that this theory should remain in the pop culture section and not as a serious discussion of the title as I am not aware of any scholarly opinion that supports this idea. Lord Red Snake 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who coined the name?

message: This section is current a chronological list (which I organized), but I'm not entirely sure I like it as a list. I'm generally against lists in articles except when they're obviously necessary; I prefer prose. However, I'm ambivalent about changing this section — the chronological ordering is kind of nice, but the bulleted list somehow make this look less like an encyclopedia article. Thoughts? • Benc • 06:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To borrow a phrase, this ain't our parents' encyclopedia. Bulleted lists are quite appropriate for a set of short items in a Wikipedia article. Prose is desirable, but if you get enough prose for each item on this list, it would probably make more sense to convert the list into a separate article, like List of pop culture references to the Mona Lisa, so it doesn't overwhelm the main topic. But a list of short citations with appropriate Wikipedia links makes more sense to me. Chronological strikes me as the most logical ordering, too. — Jeff Q 02:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronological is not appropriate, because we are not chronicling any developments. How a song by Counting Crows is relevant to that of Nat King Cole. It's not better, it's not a development of the latter, it doesn't really compares in any way, so a chronological order is not needed. It's needed even less for works in different genres. For example, why should Dali's portrait go after La Gioconda? Was it influenced by it, should people watch the film first? No and no. As for being a list, it's not too bad, but prose would be better. I am going to reedit the bulleted list into text now. Paranoid 12:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in popular culture and avant-garde art 

message: The people who drew up this list have been a bit over-zealous. "Where was the painting between 1507 and 1516?". Da Vinci took it with him on his travels. I think it's clear from the article that he didn't part from it until he sold it to François Ier. "Where was it during WWI?" In the Louvre, probably. I don't think there was a need to remove it, since Paris was never really threatened. - Karl Stas 13:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I was intentionally nitpicky when I first drew up the list — it's simple to clarify and remove items, as you've done. Thanks, • Benc • 21:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: :In gematria (a form of numerology), the name "Mona Lisa", as well as "La Giocconda" and "Leonardo",  results in the number 84.
:MONA LISA = (13+15+14+1) + (12+9+19+1) = 84.<BR>
:LA GIOCONDA = (12+1) + (7+9+15+3+3+15+14+4+1) = 84.<BR>
:LEONARDO = 12+5+15+14+1+18+4+15 = 84.<BR>
:Also, "Mona Lisa" if anagrammatized gives "Anima Sol", an (ungrammatical) Latin phrase translated as "wind sun", "breath sun", or "life sun".
Someone recently added the above as a trivia section. I'm failing to see the value in it, so moved it here. There is no firm reason why the painting is called Mona Lisa in English language countries, and if I recall it wasn't used during Leonardo's life time. If you mis-spell 'La Gioconda' you can probably get the numerology to give you any number you like. Similarly an odd translation of an anagram giving phrases of no obvious relevance - why? 
Leonardo is known to be interested in codes and ciphers, so it is worth looking for hidden meanings, but you have to do it properly. Perhaps this all comes from The Da Vinci Code book. Can anyone make a case for keeping these? -- Solipsist 09:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These numerologic "theories" are as relevant as suggesting that da Vinci was abducted by aliens. Both titles are "apocryphical". The painting was never known as either "Mon(n)a Lisa" or "La Gioconda" during da Vinci's lifetime. The latin phrase "anima sol" ("soul sun") is meaningless. Karl Stas 09:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Also note that in the Italian language (and therefore alphabet) there are no 'J' and 'K', so that 'L' is the 10th letter, and so on. So the numerical totals are (using the spelling used by Vasari): for MONA LISA = 74, LA GIOCONDA = 73 and LIONARDO = 78. StefanoC 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia / numerology 

message: Not sure that such a straight comparison between an insurance valuation and the actual sales price of a painting is really valid. Would it be better if the Picasso price was given as a context for the valuation? After all, until it is sold, the ML cannot be described as an expensive painting. Filiocht 10:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 'expensive painting'

message: ...appears to be inserting by a self-promo vandal. Please go to Talk:ASCII art for a single location of this incident discussion. BACbKA 22:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the digitalmonalisa.com link 

message: ... it appears our self healing nature is not so good as we first thought - even on well known articles such as this one. User:68.204.190.83 added a huge slab of text to the start of the article (possibly a copyvio) and it has stayed in there for 2 days. I have just reverted. For the edits made, see . - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes made to this article do not appear on my watchlist for those dates. Yours is the first change that has appeared for several days. It seems there may have been a glitch of some sort in the "watch" system.  Paul B 09:40, 16 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow... 

message: Mona Lisa was center of theme of the Pink Panther cartoon episode named "Pink DaVinci". In this episode Pink Panther keeps changing the smile of ML while DaVinci tries to revert it back. In the end DaVinci gets frustrated and kicks the tower of Pisa and the tower leans.
Is this relevant?--68.89.189.240 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Lisa in Pink Panther cartoon 

message: the painting also appeared in the title of "Mona Lisa Overdrive," a novel by William Gibson ("neuromancer," "blade runner," etc.), and--although i have not read that book myself--i wonder what the relevence is to the title, and whether or not that reference should be included in the article.--Whiteknight 04:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply referencing the name "Mona Lisa" doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a mention in this section (the examples for Britney Spears and Max Payne notwithstanding), otherwise the list could probably expand greatly, overbalancing the page. In the William Gibson (novelist) book Mona Lisa Overdrive it's possible that the reference is to Molly Millions being a living work of art due to her body modifications, but that is definately speculative and tenuous. YojimboSan 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably the Britney Spears and Max Payne references should be removed from the list, thinking about it. Any other points of view here? YojimboSan 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be desirable to add a hidden warning that the list should not become too long, so that mere mentions of NL should be deleted. Paul B 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Lisa Overdrive 

message: whats so popular about it?
Pece Kocovski 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the mona lisa? 

message: I have deleted the following passage:
German and Russian students have seen a new fact: the correspondence between the face of Mona Lisa and the face of Caterina Sforza in a portrait by Lorenzo di Credi . Caterina Sforza was the Lady of Forlì and Imola when Cesare Borgia and Leonardo went in Romagna. The portrait by Lorenzo di Credi is now in the Museum of Forlì, in Italy and is known also as "La dama dei gelsomini".
Who are these "German and Russian students"? No reference is given. 
Well: You was right. Now here is the name: Magdalena Soest.
Why is it a "new fact"? New theory, more like - not even that. Apart from "seeing" this resemblance there does not seem to be any other evidence connecting the two images. I can't see much of a resemblance meesel'. Paul B 16:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What computer? Well Magdalena, if this new theory has been published by a reputable publisher, then it can go in (see WP:RP). If not, then it's WP:OR. Paul B 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "new fact"

message: I was refered to this page from the page about Da Vinci Code, and i was extremely suprised to find no reference to the book except at the end when they talk about movies, songs and books that the Mona Lisa is mentioned in. Maybe I am just guilable and very easily influenced, but i found the descriptions of Mona Lisa in the book Da Vinci Code to be in fact very accurate and likely.
For those of you who have read the book, you will be farmiliar with the theory that the right side is meant to be man and left woman and when examining the painting you can see the left side of the painting is larger, as if representing the male half of the painting. The book also explains that Da Vinci was a believer of needing both male and female to be complete, which I believe is what he was depicting in this painting. Also, the name Mona Lisa does fit the theory that it is an ananogram of Amon (the egyptian god of fertility) and l'Isa (the egyptian godess of fertility.) 
I must admit that this takes art to whole new level, especially with such a controversial artist, but a bit of debate never hurt anyone...
Natalia
:Well the book is not an authoritative source of information about the painting is it? It's a novel. Apart from Dan Brown making it up, no scholar has ever suggested that the name is an anagram of Amon and the French for Isis. As the article makes clear, the title was not invented by Leonardo (people did not give titles to paintings in his day). It simply derives from Vasari's identification of the sitter. There is no evidence that I know of to support the view that Leonardo was a believer in the sacred union of masculinity and femininity I don't know what you mean when you say that the left hand side of the painting is 'larger'. The landscape on the right hand side is higher up - a fact already discussed, albeit briefly, in the article. 
:Many of these issues are discussed in the Da Vinci Code page. Paul B 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Da Vinci Code? 

message: "According to the latest computer results, the subject, thought to be the Florentine wife of Francesco del Giocondo, was 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful and 2% angry, the New Scientist was told."
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4530650.stm
It cost a dutch university some millions of euros to research this tremendously important topic. What a great achievement for the entire world, where there are no more wars, diseases, famine and global warming worth fixing. L'art pour l'art!
:The article says nothing about it having cost "millions of euros" to use the program to analyse the expression. The use of the "Mona Lisa" is just a very cheap PUBLICITY STUNT to advertise the software program, which will have many commercial applications. l'art pour l'industrie! Paul B 11:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is a press release that has successfully snuck into international headlines.  These statistics are meaningless.  NTK 16:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How about mentioning the opinion of facial expression expert Paul Ekman?  I'd certainly be more swayed by his thoughts than in the software mentioned.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/16/MN241376.DTL&type=science  "Mona Lisa's smile is very interesting because it involves just the lips," Ekman said. "And she is facing one way and looking slightly the other way. That's one of the things that happens in flirtation. There's a slight smile, you flick your eyes to look at someone and flick them back. You could say that she was flirting."  Ff123 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotion computer software finds Mona Lisa is indeed smiling 

message: From Duchamp:
:Research published in 1997 by art historian Rhonda Roland Shearer indicates that Duchamp's supposedly 'found' objects may actually have been created by Duchamp. Exhaustive research of items like snow shovels and bottle racks in use at the time has failed to turn up any identical matches. The urinal, upon close inspection, is non-functional. (However, there are accounts of Walter Arensberg and Joseph Stella being with Duchamp when he purchased the original Fountain at J. L. Mott Iron Works.) The artwork "L.H.O.O.Q." which is supposedly a poster-copy of the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on it, turns out to be not the true Mona Lisa, but Duchamp's own slightly-different version that he modelled partly after himself. If Shearer's findings are correct then Duchamp was creating an even larger joke than he admitted. [1]
Should this be mentioned here?  Has this been verified or is this still a fringe viewpoint? NTK 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchamp 

message: It is displayed in a purpose-built, climate-controlled enclosure behind unbreakable, non-reflective glass
To the right of this sentence is the picture of the painting under the glass, with reflections of the visitors clearly visible in the glass. Someone should explain what non-reflective glass means in this case (I can't as I don't know). Nevfennas 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture beside the statement is clearly labelled to say that it illustrates how the picture was displayed before it was moved last year. It was displayed in a box made of reflective bullet-proof glass (which actually made it notoriausly difficult to see). As for fading, that's not really a big problem, but the photo flash guns don't help. The painting has been exposed to view for 400 years, so the effects of normal light are not really a big issue. Colours fade or remain stable for a variety of reasons. The problem of colour in the Mona Lisa is due to the varnish and Leonardo's habit of applying very very thin glazes.Paul B 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-reflective glass 

message: At some point after Leonardo's death the painting was cut down by having part of the panel at both sides removed. Originally there were two columns on either side of the figure, as we know from early copies.
This part needs more work. It is actually about the original painting itself, how Leonardo composed it, and not about tangents like insurance value, acid attacks and bulletproof glass. At the least a source needs to be cited. Ideally I'd like to see a picture of one of those early copies.
--BjKa 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we don't know when this cut occurred, but the early copies are reproduced in a number of books on Leonardo. You can see a repro of one of the copies here. Paul B 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut / Copied 

message: In The Mark Steel Lectures, it is said that the mona lisa was never officially finished; Leonardo always thought there is just one more thing needed to be added. Any comments? --UVnet 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Steel's a comedian. He likes to exaggerate. I'm sure there's a Marxist message in the painting somewhere too. However, he never gave it to Mr Giocondo, that's for sure. But it's impossible to say it was never finished. There's no evidence of incompletion in the painting, unlike other Leonardo works and we have no recorded statements from Leo saying that he still needed to do more work on it. Paul B 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  finished or not? 

message: This is a copy of a box above in this article:
"This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive."
That 'subpage' is a link, but to nothing that is now in Wikipedia. I would like to see the nomination and failure, but cannot seem to find it. --Dumarest 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question??

message: Congratualations to all significant editors, I have promoted this article to Good Article status.  However, I would like to also comment that I consider the article (although wonderful prose) to have barely scraped through the nomination, as it needs more references.  Should you wish to improve the article rapidly, please find more references for the facts within.  I would also strongly recommend changing the references to the <ref> tag format.  Inspiring work, I may be back to help later. — Estarriol talk 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoted as Good Article

message: This article makes the claim that the Mona Lisa's eyes follow the viewer.  This claim is made about many paintings, but the truth is that ANY image in which the subject is looking at the viewer will appear this way from any angle, unless the image is some sort of 3-D hologram that actually looks at a specific point in space.  So the fact that Mona Lisa's eyes "follow" you is not unique, and in my opinion should be removed. Tulane97 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eyes follow you"

message: "Winding paths and a distant bridge give only the slightest indications of human presence."
What about the pillars? In my opinion, that gives a big indication of human presence. ViperBite 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Presence?

message: There are multiple duplicates and even one assumed "study". I'll give some info on the "study" as I just recently saw its display in the Portland Museum of Art.
The Portland copy/study officially titled La Gioconda (I dont know if this is because its the name of the finished work) is thought to either be a preperatory study or a copy painted by one of DaVinci's followers, if it is a copy it would be the oldest known to exist since it has been dated to before 1510, however they have been unable to confirm or deny if Leonardo was involved in its creation. In a section of the painting (a river near a bridge) the characteristic left handed stroke of Leonardo seems to be present. All they know of the history of the "study" is that it was given to the Portland Museum in 1983 by Henry H. Reichhold of Prouts Neck, Maine who purchased the work in the 1960s after the death of its European owner.
Analysis via infrared, uv, microscope and x-ray radiography was conducted by the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard University. Pigment analysis was done with scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction and polarizing microscopy. Analysis of the basic structure of the painting shows that the original 16th century canvas was later mounted onto a wood panel, so that on top of the panel there are now layers of adhesive, gauze, deteriorated canvas (the original support), red-brown ground, white ground, and the surface layer of pigment. Analysis of paint samples from various locations showed that the horizontal strip (looks to be some sort of gilded wooden strip approximately 5cm in height) at the bottom was added sometime around 1820 (probably the same time the canvas was panel mounted). Otherwise the testing showed nothing inconsistant with an early 16th century date. The museums study stated: "Definitive conclusions about the original state of the painting are difficult to arrive at because of the present overall poor condition of the painting and the extreme restoration it has undergone" 
Other differences between the "study" and the original are:
* The original is 53 x 77 centimeters, the study is 54 x 64 centimeters.
* The study colors are less bright
* The study figure is positioned differently in the space
* The study landscape has less detail
* The study figure has a less defined smile
Can somebody clean my data dump up into decent prose and add some more info on the other known copies?  ALKIVAR™ 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have nothing on the studies and reproductions? 

message: was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the Role in popular culture and avant-garde art section is substandard - all bullet points and short paragraphs with no flow whatsoever, and telling the reader very little about the painting.  The bit about avant-garde art is interesting, the rest is really just trivial.  The Scream has a very good example of how a work of art's influence on popular culture can be discussed rather than listed.
Also, writing throughout the article needs work: signifying Leonardo's erotic attraction to his dear mother is unencyclopaedic in tone, and making this painting an enduring record of Leonardo's vision and genius. expresses a point of view, for example.  There is also a 'citation needed' tag present.  Worldtraveller 10:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{PAGENAME}} removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: In the book "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of the Unexplained" (2000), there is a section about two La Gioconda paintings, the famous one and the one for for Giuliano de Medici.  This is mentioned in the wiki under the section "Identity of the model".
The book suggests that Mona Lisa correctly applies to the de Medici painting (which is located in a private residence in England) and the more famous one is more accurately called "La Gioconda".  Should this book be cited as an additional reference for the related wiki paragraph? Crystalattice 07:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a really legitimate source. The two titles are simply interchangable, because it is thought to depict Mona Lisa Gioconda. It like a painting of, say, Renée Zellweger, being called both "Miss Renée" and "Ms Zellweger". (It doesn't quite work in English because we wouldn't add the definite article to a name, since we don't have gendered nouns and inflected names). Paul B 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about alternative identity

message: What's so great about this ruddy pic. of a smiling woman?
:Read the ruddy article. Paul B 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The speciality

message: The Identity of the model section of the Mona Lisa entry has dropped to the bottom of the page. What happened?
:My fault. I accidentally left the <"/ref"> sign off the end of a footnote, so the system interpreted all following text until the next "ref" sign as part of a footnote. Paul B 08:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of the model 

message: Let's not get carried away by news reports. The fact that she is wearing a transparent veil is not a new discovery. Anyone can see the line across her forehead, and follow the veil down her hair. It's just that it then disappears for modern viewers into the general dark blur of her clothing. The claim that this veil is specific evidence of pregnancy is an interpretation, not a simple fact. Paul B 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veil

message: I moved the Second World War and Post-war sections to be subordinate to the 20th century section. Changed the name of the 20th century section to 20th century to present, since there is mention of some 21st century events. Bear475 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Hierarchy

message: In the Aesthetics section, the mention of "Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione" should link to the corresponding wikipedia article, especially since the referencing sentence makes a stylistic comparison to the painting, which may be unfamiliar to the reader. I'd change it myself but can't due to the semi-protection. Macroexp (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now linked to article on Castiglione, with painting by Raphael. JNW (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add links 

message: Hi. Thanks to this article, Lisa del Giocondo reached GA and is a featured article candidate at the moment. I can't push this article to GA but can make some edits in that direction. Anyone else interested? -Susanlesch (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaching GA

message: Re this edit which removed some material with "merge" in the edit summary: if this material was merged to another article, where is the other article?  I think the information about tours is interesting and should be kept somewhere, even if it has to be moved to a subpage. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to where? 

message: "Mona Lisa was not well-known until the mid-19th century…"
"For modern viewers the missing eyebrows add to the slightly semi-abstract quality of the face…."
Would be interested in seeing citations for these and several other claims in the article.
SchrageMusik (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I am confused by the usage of "apanage" in this section.  The context seems appropriate for "coiffure" or (less pretentiously) "hairstyle", but it is possible that another meaning was intended.  Maybe I'm just missing something, so I won't be bold just yet.  Thoughts?Scray (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrared Scan: usage of "apanage" 

message: I see no reference to the work by Dr. Lillian F. Schwartz of Bell Labs, who speculated (ca. 1990) that the Mona Lisa was simply a feminized version of Leonardo's own self-portrait. Using digital photo manipulation, she discovered that both Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa's facial characteristics are perfectly aligned, but left-right reversed. See Lillian's website Lillian.com, and a brief mention here. There is also a video speculating about the actual appearance of da Vince himself at Ted.com. My own version of the comparison image (constructed from the Wikipedia images) can be found here.  — Loadmaster (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminized self-portrait 

message: The following is not a sentence and does not make sense:
"In Italian, ma donna from donna meaning my lady which became Madonna, and its contraction mona"
I suugest:
"The word mona is a contration of madonna, or ma donna, meaning 'my lady'"
The article seems to be locked for editing, though, so I can't sort it out - can one of you experienced Wikipedians do it for me?
HairyDan (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address this problem.  JoJan (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad English 

message: Hi I'm Italian. Are you sure the English diction is "Mona" Lisa? Beacuse in Italy we say "Monna Lisa". Mona is not a nice word in Italian, it means "cunt" (sorry!) --Sailko (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mona or Monna Lisa?

message: :"Size is given as 77cm x 53cm" but according to the Louvre website [] if you move into the detailed descriptions and click scale, it shows the Mona Lisa as only 60cm high. This corresponds to only approx 23-24 inches. Thoughtbox 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those dimensions (77cm x 53cm) are accurate (I think I've seen the height variously quoted as 78cm). Also, the panel has a thickness of 1.2 to 1.4 cm. The 60cm value must be a mistake. Jeff Dahl 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size appears wrong 

message: In the place where it says-
:...83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful, 2% angry, less than 1% neutral, and not surprised at all.
Doesn't this add up to more than 100%? I think somethings happened...
::Probably just rounding errors, notice that it says "less than 1% neutral", the other figures are also probably not exact.  David Underdown 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that whole paragraph should be removed, it's a crackpot analysis from a single, small group of people using a technique that has not been proven to mean anything; and it is the least significant possible footnote in the long history of this painting.  Tempshill 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Dlabtot 05:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  101%? 

message: The article currently states,
:In 1987, the lower part of the painting was severely damaged when someone doused it with acid. On December 30 of that same year, Ugo Ungaza Villegas, a young Bolivian, damaged the painting by throwing a rock at it.
Can anyone perhaps elaborate on this? I mean, the dousing of the painting with acid is reported as though this is a normal thing to be done to a masterpiece and so nothing further needs to be said about it. Did someone just stroll into the Louvre with a beaker of acid and throw it onto the painting? I'd be interested to know the circumstances of this event, in particular why this was done and how it was allowed to happen. Who did it? What was the motivation? How was it repaired? etc. etc. --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even today, anyone can easily stroll into the Louvre with acid. In 1956 most paintings were barely protected at all. Paul B 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postwar damage 

message: ^ CNN. (2006, September 26). The Mona Lisa studied in 3D Retrieved on September 25, 2006.
does not point to the existing page. --Gorn 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 7 in NOT correct 

message: "The painting, a half-length portrait, depicts a woman whose gaze meets the viewer's with an expression often described as enigmatic."
*Really??? It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Her gaze doesn't quite meet yours, she's looking slightly to your right. Palefire 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's looking straight out towards the viewer, but her head is slightly turned to the left, so her eyes are slightly to the right in her head in order to stare out at the viewer. Paul B 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mona Lisa's line of sight

message: [read this]. Bouncey2k from it wiki. 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  place and date of Monna Lisa's death 

message: She has a moustache painted on her, so she bears a more close resemblance to Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. either way there is not much to subtantiate either claim. Should it be removed altogether? mice 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mona Lisa in the Pinocchio attraction

message: In the theft section, Picasso is said to have been questioned for stealing the Mona Lisa. Is this just vandalism or was he really questioned? Someone more knowledgeable please look into this — Lost(talk) 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theft 

message: could you add the Weird Al Mona Lisa?  thanks.
here's the URL 
Wrestling Maniac 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would not be appropriate for this article. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird al pic 

message: There's a youtube video which should be mentioned in this article. In the video, we can see someone drawing the Mona Lisa in 2.5 hours only with Paint! Here's the link: --80.218.244.7 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty amazing.  Not sure of its appropriateness, but if it can be included somewhere, it would be great. Paul Haymon 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Lisa, drawn with Microsoft Paint 

message: I find the brief glimpse of LD's activities in the movie 'Hudson Hawk' quite amusing.  LD is shown to be progressing from one work-in-progress to another, one of which being a completed portrait of the Mona Lisa.... completed but for a conspicuous hole where her mouth should be.  He snaps his fingers to wake his dozing model and she grins in surprise and we see the most unattractive snaggle-toothed smile imaginable.  LD sighs in defeated frustration and moves on to another work-in-progress.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0102070/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thistledowne (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Cultural Reference. 

message: Someone asked me what style the Mona Lisa was painted in, and oddly enough I couldn't answer.  The best I know is that it's Italian High Renaissance.  Can someone help me out here, and add or direct me to the appropriate info on the page? Paul Haymon 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: There is a mistake in the translation of 'L.H.O.O.Q'.  The French word for 'arse' should be spelled 'cul', not 'cue'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.0.179.162 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Fixed it. --BjKa 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Someone want to add something about this? 71.82.214.160 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another version 

message: Art4em insists on adding this material. It is blatantly original research, backed up only be a press release attributed to its author. This is also WP:COI. Art4em has also been warned not to exceed 3RR. Tyrenius 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Art4em]]

message: The last sentence of the section Mona Lisa#Theft reads: "Although Peruggia was only in jail for a few months, many believed that he should have been executed for such a crime." That sounds a little harsh, not to mention the weasel phrase "many believed". Can anyone cite this? If not, I think it should go. --Zvika 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thief to be executed? 

message: Hi. I am not a scholar but I did look up a few things today and made some changes and hope they aren't alarming. -Susanlesch 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More changes just now, mainly to reorder the article (ok with me in advance to revert any or all of these changes). -Susanlesch 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: The article needs more explanation of why this little painting is popularly considered the greatest work of art in the world.--Jack Upland 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Added a "Fame" section, not sure if I can finish it. A few people might say Mona Lisa is the most famous work of art, but more often it is called the "most famous painting" (apart from greatness). Does this help? -Susanlesch 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim to fame? 

message: The Indigo Girls song that mentions Mona Lisa is a cover of "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters".  The song is already mentioned in the article.  You could add Indigo Girls to the the mention, but realize that the song has been covered at least three other time.  Do you just leave it with Elton John or do you include all of the covers?  I say leave it with Elton John and if people click on the link, they will find out more info.  A Softer Answer 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list, popular culture section

message: I belive that the eyebrows were washed off with a strong cleaner by some of the people set to clean it.Supergeek66 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you believe wrong. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Brows 

message: I know it took him a long time to complete, but if it was meant for a new house how come this did not happen?? I have searched but can shed no light on this??? any suggestions??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.242.228 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why if the painting was commissioned was it not given to the commissioner???

message: What's up with thi picture of the painting with fresh colours? It's not referenced in the article anywhere (sorry if I missed it) and not explained. It seems to be quite a good job, but I'm not sure how true it is to the original, for example, there is added facial hair on it, and I'm not sure if the colours even should be that bright. Can anyone explain it? (Jatoo (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The colors appear altered, and there does not seem to be a need for such an additional, and chromatically false image in the article. It's reverted, pending explanation. JNW (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh colours

message: AOL article: conclusive documents found. JAF1970 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of this. I do not think it is appropriate to convey the impression that the subject has always been known, which is how the current article comes across. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new confirmation of the sitter's identity is in the news, and copiously cited in the article. The article seems to be quite comprehensive regarding the historical possibilities, including alternative theories along with the traditional attribution. JNW (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP version says this news happened in 2005 (which helps me understand why scholars were so sure before now). For now I think a three-part citation—Uni Heidelberg, Reuters and AP—is plenty, and obviates the need to follow a current event (that might be a US press event). Does that look okay? Nice to see this finally settled (speculation was weighing down this article terribly before). Thanks very much for the manuscript image, too. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks okay to me. Good work! JNW (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think a new article Speculation about Mona Lisa would help clear out the backlog? If I get minute I will try it. It is perfectly okay to revert from my point of view. Thanks again JNW and all. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of material for such an entry, but I'm dubious as to whether it's necessary. I guess my inclination is to say that it resides appropriately, if a bit ungainly, where it is. That said, if the idea inspires you, give it a go! JNW (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried it, and moved the summary of speculation out of the Lisa article to the Mona article. JNW or anyone please feel free to undo that. Also re-added a pix of Lisa's face for now. I'll bow out for a bit to see what others think. Thanks so much to whoever uncovered this news. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe it important to clarify the date of the discovery (which is presently stated as 14th Jan, 2007), and edit the article so that it reads "in 2005". It makes little to no sense to present the date in which the news was widely conveyed by media as the actual confirmation of the sitter's identity (which took place two years before). History of art is history of art, and media communications are media communications. For more information on the matter: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1703861,00.html.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zettai mu (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Zettai mu. Year fixed. I think a week or so ago a user mistakenly changed it. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mona Lisa proven to be Lisa Gherardini

message: In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci%27s_personal_life#Salaino it is reported that Leonardo bequeathed the Mona Lisa to il Salaino, his servant and companion, who listed the painting in his own will. However in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa#Artist_and_early_history it is reported that King Francois I bought the painting for 4,000 ecus.
Both can't be right, and I don't know which is. Anyone able to provide a definite reference?
Dermod (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Dermod. The king bought the painting from Salai's heirs. I don't own his book anymore but Kemp is a good reference. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting reports in Wikipedia - to whom did Leonardo give or sell the Mona Lisa? 

message: Mona Lisa was supposed to be Leonardo Da Vinci himself  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.8.89 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Lisa 

message: A book has recently been edited, following an advanced scientific examination of the work, during its move 
to "Salle des Actes". It has been edited by members of C2RMF ("Centre de Recherche et de Restauration
des Musees de France", http://www.c2rmf.fr). Maybe it could be of interest to add it to the references,
since an english translation is available.
To check the trhuthfulness, see for instance 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mona-Lisa-Inside-Painting/dp/0810943158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212856843&sr=1-1
Reference:
J.-P. Mohen, M. Menu and B. Mottin (eds), "Mona Lisa, inside the painting", Abrams, New-York, 2006, ISBN 10:0-8109-4315-8.
BiBTeX code if needed:
@BOOK{Mohen2006,
  title = {Mona {L}isa, inside the painting},
  publisher = {Abrams},
  year = {2006},
  editor = {J.-P. Mohen and M. Menu and B. Mottin},
  address = {New York},
  note = {ISBN 10:0-8109-4315-8},
}
----
D. Dureisseix, LMGC, Univ. Montpellier 2, France  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dureisseix (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new reference from a study directed by Louvre/C2RMF 

message: "We are attracted to this mysterious woman!!" isn't neutral (or true, for me), and a few other statements are missing citations. I wasn't sure of the most appropriate way to tag the section; I've added a POV tag for now, although I think that's meant to apply to the whole article. Vbbdesign (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the Aesthetics section 

message: has anyone ever noticed she doesn't have eyebrows?? (OMG)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.246.63 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  eyebrows 

message: Today there are also those who think that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. She died in 1495.  Relpmek (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions Caterina along with many other women who people have seen in the painting. Perhaps like people see things in clouds, I don't know. Here's a whole article with more speculation. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not correct to say that today the subject's identity is held with certainty to be Lisa. It is not a cloud and you really don't know. 93.172.152.95 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject and title 

message: Could someone with a knowledge of classical art add a point about the Mona Lisa's remarkable similarity to a portrait by Raphael known as "Solly Madonna," which was completed in 1502, before the Mona Lisa? Here is a link to it:
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael87.html
68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to Raphael's "Solly Madonna" painting 

message: Why has this image been commented out? I have reinstated it as it seems to illustrate the text it accompanies.Research Method (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Elle a chaud au cul" doesn't translate to "she has a hot ass" but to "she's got a fire down below". The word "cul", although meaning "ass" or "butt", is far less offensive in French as it is in English (e.g. cul-de-sac, cul-de-bouteille, cul-de-mariée, etc... the word appears frequently in everyday French).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.92.218 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ 

message: When I was at The Louvre a year or two ago I recall there being a notice saying that no flash photography was permitted in front of the Mona Lisa. This was being ignored at the time, and by the looks of things it has been ignored for years. Does anyone think this point should be made in the article, or at least under the photograph with the photographer's reflection on the glass? RevenDS (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash Photography 

message: Per pg. 128 of the 1986 Guinness Book of World Records, under the heading "Most Valuable Painting," 
The "Mona Lisa" (La Gioconda) by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) in the Louvre, Paris, was assessed for insurance purposes at the highest figure ever at $100 million for its move for exhibition in Washington, DC and NYC from Dec. 14, 1962, to March 12, 1963.  However, insurance was not concluded because the cost of the closest security precautions was less than that of the premiums...
RJBaran (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be discussed Gottoupload (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962-1963 tour and $100 million insurance valuation 

message: Can't we use a higher-quality picture of the painting, such as this one, for example? Esn (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Using a better image

message: Enki H. (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Insurance" mis-spelt

message: Does anyone have information about the painting known as the Nude Mona Lisa ? If the Mona Lisa is the world's most famous painting, then this rather obscure nude painting is still one of the most famous nude portraits in the world.   ADM (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some confusion. A Google search indicates that a possible nude Mona is a new find . However, this does not automatically make it 'one of the most famous nude portraits in the world'. The image you've linked to appears to be a photoshop image joining the Mona Lisa with another Renaissance piece (a Raphael, I think ), and is not authentic. JNW (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discovery , are covering this new find too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Nude Mona Lisas have been known for years and were mentioned in this article for years, but were moved to the article Speculation about Mona Lisa. Paul B (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nude Mona Lisa

message: This happened when I last saw Mona Lisa last week.
So I was walking to see the image at the Louvre, and I saw a huge crowd behind a line barrier with a faculty worker watching. So, people took pictures of the Mona Lisa, and I followed suit. Before I continue, I want to point out that my camera is brand new (got it about a week before I left), and is a really high quality camera. Also, at the moment I took a picture, no flash was used, nor was there any present (but after I took the picture).
Now here's the part that really freaked me out. I took a picture of the Mona Lisa, and rather than storing it into my memory card, the camera brings up a prompt "did somebody blink?" It doesn't sound like a huge phenomenon, but when I shared it with my friends, who were experts with cameras/electronics, they said it was the "creepiest thing they have ever heard". They also explained that cameras these days, especially the one that prevents you from storing blinked pictures, recognizes HUMAN FACES.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.92.251 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it prevent you from storing that image? Isn't there a way to manually override that capability of the camera? Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blinking Mona Lisa 

message: Currently, the image :File:Mona Lisa.jpg is displayed, which is rather dark and brownish. Self I've made an modified version (:File:Mona Lisa-restored.jpg) in which I've modified the color curves to look more what I think is how it should look like.
Comparison:
→AzaToth 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of what the picture should look like, it's a question of accurately depicting what it really looks like at the present time. Your enhanced image would be more suitable to illustrate what it may have originally looked like, which should probably go in a historical section of the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showing original image or color adjusted? 

message: The painter's name is Leonardo and not Da Vinci.
People refer to him both by Leonardo and Da Vinci. Ohhaieveryone (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The painter's name