Talk:Isleworth Mona Lisa

message: that isn't the ORIGINAL title, it's a different title.  see Mona Lisa
:Unless you are commenting on something that has since been removed, you seem to be a bit confused. I could not find where the name "La Gioconda" is stated as the original title in this Wikipedia. And I did read the Mona Lisa Wikipedia the very first (introductory)paragraph seems to state many names were used: The Mona Lisa, La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo.
In reality this Wikipedia has many, much more serious problems than trying to argue whether an Italian 16th century painting was originally named Mona Lisa or La Gioconda (there is little doubt it was not originally titled Mona Lisa. As I understand it Giorgio Vasari named the painting in his Da Vinci's biography)La Joconde or any other name. There are dead links, lack of citations, non-verified "facts". This whole article should be redone or removed.
--75.17.193.238 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Gioconda  

message: This article does not have a neutral point of view. I'm adding a tag to it. I especially don't like the use of the word "fact". Gary 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: How is the lack of an ISBN or copyright date relevant to the validity of the book's arguments?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakazal (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pultizer's Book 

message: Calling something an "earlier version" does not make it an earlier version. Coldcreation (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Earlier" version 

message: The article states that the painting has the same subject as the "Mona Lisa," but at an "earlier age." There is no citation or support given for this non-obvious interpretation. One could logically conclude that, just as the background of the painting is incompetent and lacks detail, as described, so is the face; i.e., it lacks full detail rather than being more juvenile. Jtcarpet (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported speculation/interpretation 

message: This appears to be original research, . The ref note says  Even the Mona Lisa Foundation doesn't claim such figures. — Hillbillyholiday talk 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for the comment. Actually, the opinions of 22 who attribute the painting to Da Vinci are all contained in the references given. I am new to wiki so would appreciate your guidance if I did something incorrectly.Genevieve81 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that to state "The painting is claimed by a majority of experts to be mostly an original work of Leonardo dating from the early 16th century" you would need a source that says just that. Personal analysis of the available literature in this manner is not allowed. See: Wikipedia:No original research — Hillbillyholiday talk 15:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: I noticed that this reference:
:
was removed with this edit, and that a later listing of Konody among experts who "supported the attribution of the most significant sections of the Isleworth Mona Lisa to Leonardo da Vinci", which had used this New York Times source, was removed with this edit. Since Konody is originally cited to The New York Times, which Wikipedia generally considers a reliable source, is there any reason why this should not be fixed up as needed and included in the article? BD2412 T 20:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch, I’m not sure why I took it out to be honest (probably just missed it) but after reading it here it looks like it’s worth (some) inclusion. I don’t know when I’ll get around to working on this page again, the recent conversations here have seriously discouraged me in doing so and it’s much more enjoyable for me to work on paintings that are more confidentially attributed to Leonardo. So feel free to add this information back in. The attribution section as a whole still needs more information, balancing and more info from Syson and Kemp so I’ll hold myself to returning to do so at some point. Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good catch BD2412. Ceoil (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a paragraph on Konody, basically adapted from our article on Konody. It is very interesting bit of history that this was not his first run-in with a work claimed for Leonardo. BD2412 T 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konody 

message: Since  reverted my edit without any explanation and warned me for "inappropriate claims" I would invite them to source art historians (or perhaps a single one?) that claims the painting to be completely by Leonardo, without significant input from his students. Even the Mona Lisa foundation (the central authority for an attribution of the painting to Leonardo) doesn't claim such a thing: "The foundation therefore concludes that Leonardo was responsible for the face and hands of the woman in the Isleworth picture, while an inferior artist must have painted the clumsy landscape in the background." (Here). Other historians that push the attribution Konody (not an historian, but a notable art journalist from the NYTs), Eyre and all of the experts Eyre consulted only agreed to a partial attribution. Reflective of this, the infobox should say, as I put it "Artist: The workshop of Leonardo da Vinci or Leonardo and his workshop" or something along those lines. I would be open to simply putting "uncertain" as well. Aza24 (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:ONUS is on you to provide the source. It is unreasonable that you would use one that has not yet been published. jps (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What?? I'm not talking about your removal of the article, I'm talking about removal of my change to the infobox. Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, to be clear, this information is already sourced throughout the article, see WP:INFOBOXREF. If you believe that more citations are needed then simply say so... Aza24 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

text: My two cents on the infobox: looking at the Virgin of the Rocks#London version, the infobox says "Leonardo da Vinci and other(s)", although the "other(s)" referenced were likely students in the workshop, so I would think the language here would be consistent with that. It is my understanding that the background may have been painted decades or centuries after the central figure of the painting, so that would definitely be "other(s)". Also, I wouldn't hesitate to call Konody an art historian, as he wrote rather solid biographies on a number of Renaissance artists—for example, Raphael and Filippino Lippi (not to be confused with Filippo Lippi, which gave me some trouble). BD2412 T 04:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Konody does seem to be credible, thanks for clarifying. The only issue I have with putting "Leonardo and others" is that it ignores a majority of experts that see the painting as just by his students so maybe something like "Leonardo and other(s) or Students or Leonardo" would be appropriate.Aza24 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, I think, "Leonardo and other(s); or workshop of Leonardo and other(s)"; if the background is much later, it should be "other(s)" in both cases. BD2412 T 05:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, that would make sense to me. I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone else has input before doing so. Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In favour of "Leonardo and other(s); or workshop of Leonardo and other(s)". Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree. We are making attribution a point at the moment when it isn't really clear based on the condition of the article. There is OR and POV issues that I would say need resolved first. For now, let's remove the attribution from the information box until there is a version of the page that is NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record agree with both ජපස and CNMall. The below suggestions seem to be a good way forward. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting to lean towards "Leonardo and workshop" or "Leonardo and others" since most of the references do attribute at least some of the painting to Leonardo while either remaining silent on the other portion for attribution or say something about the workshop or others. I will say that "uncertain" is absolutely WP:OR and exactly why I am waiting for BD to finish whatever work they are doing on the page prior to posting a proposal for the infobox. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, willing to discuss but the only thing I see was agreed upon was the removal of the attribution altogether until a NPOV version is made. "For the record agree with both ජපස and CNMall. The below suggestions seem to be a good way forward."--CNMall41 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I think we should start thinking about removing rather than adding. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  Please just leave this blank until we do have a consensus based on all the information available. Re: "waiting for BD to finish whatever work they are doing", this is going to take a while. I have started a draft of Draft:Salvatore Lorusso to further examine his notability, and will be working through the other figures noted on the page in due course. There is no WP:DEADLINE. BD2412 T 01:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I put "uncertain" in the infobox was because Wikipedia is a live site, and imo putting "uncertain" (which is vague but true since there in no obvious consensus) is better than putting nothing – for the sake of a reader that stumbles across this article during this work. Leaving it blank is fine I suppose, but that was my reasoning for "uncertain". I'll try to develop an article for Syson and perhaps improve Kemp's article to match the work on Konody's and Lorusso's.  and  in an effort to try and separate description from attribution I've moved the canvas quote to the first paragraph of the description, and then the rest of the canvas section to the attribution, (since the rest is discussed in a way to relates to the attribution). I have some ideas on how to expand the canvas section more but it would be easier if moved into the attribution as I've done, willing to discuss the change of course. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I do understand why you did it. To my point, it is still making a conclusion for the reader which is WP:OR. When someone comes to Wikipedia and sees "uncertain" in the information box, they are going to assume that the attribution is uncertain which is not. We only report what the references say (which I think we are all disputing at the moment) and readers can draw their own conclusion.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  I think moving the canvas section is not unreasonable, since the canvas isn't particularly an element of the appearance of the painting. As for the attribution, as long as the parameter remains blank, there is no appearance of a missing field in the infobox, which is fine for the time being. It is certainly better to leave it blank that to be fighting over it in the article. BD2412 T 02:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As stated previously, I'm not against some reorganization, but I also see the sense in keeping all of the commentary about specific parts of the painting together. It looks strange to have the description of the canvas in the attribution section with the heading the way it is. I think we keep all of the descriptions in that section and then sum up what experts conclude based on the descriptions in the attribution section. Just my opinion.  --CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox attribution 

message: , Thank you for the tremendous additions just now. Looking at this article as a whole we need to be careful to separate the description, history and attribution sections better. I think all of the subsections in description can be moved to "attribution" since they are discussing how the attribution relates to the painting anyways and the description section IMO should simply be the first paragraph: a description of the painting itself without talk of attribution. If these subsections were moved then most of the existing attribution section could be synthesized into it, since the attribution section at the moment is more of a "history of attribution" section anyways. I wonder if we even need the 2nd paragraph on Pulitzer, he is in the minority of historians/specialists that went so for as to say that the Isleworth was the only Mona Lisa; the section is unsourced as well and problematic in general. I think mentioning of him in the history section already is more than enough. Aza24 (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead also needs to hit the nail on the head; we need to know early on about who is saying what, what years they were saying it, and on what basis. Suggest an opening sentence along the lines of an "early sixteenth-century oil on canvas painting by Leonardo and other(s); or workshop of Leonardo and other(s)".  Then a brief description, then a two or three sentence para on attribution. I agree re BD2412's input; can see a way forward now. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the moment, I am exhausted, and will put my thinking cap on about further reorganization tomorrow. I do agree that we're on a good path. I think it's tricky to separate out some elements of description and attribution, since some reviewers have basically said 'element X has characteristic Y and therefore attribution Z, so my inclination would be to focus attribution on the broader arguments made by Eyre (and to a lesser extent Pulitzer), and the refutations of those. I haven't found or read Pulitzer's book, but I have read reviews of it which suggest that he did his cause no favors, and mostly echoes arguments raised by Eyre. BD2412 T 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes there is a cart before the horse issue here. If we go by the mainstream consensus (tbd) of t being a copy, then it only makes sense to merge the description in to a differential analysis of the original....via a rehashing of the attribution talking points. Late here, that's not best explained, but hopefully ye get what I mean. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely tricky to separate the description from attribution, which is why I don't think it's worth it in the first place. If we don't move the info from the description to the attribution, the attribution section will end up relaying most of the description section anyways. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we broadly organise so as Background, att, and or /description. ie I agree with your orig suggest. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Also re An independent 2015 academic journal article by professors Salvatore Lorusso and Andrea Natali - we need to say professors of where, and academic journal published by whom. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. The journal for that cite is Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, Vol. 15, p. 57–84 (I have updated these parameters in the article). Lorusso, per his bio, is a former professor in the Department of Cultural Heritage at the University of Bologna, and should probably have a Wikipedia article. His Google Scholar citations go back to 1987, so he has to be up there in years. Andrea Natali is (or was) an adjunct professor in the same department. Probably not article-worthy. BD2412 T 01:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Why talk of its supposed innovations etc, on their own merits, when its obv its a second hand knock off. From what I've read and understood, its artistic / progressive value is low, and market value must be solely around its age. Lets not go down a false equivalency road wrt to sources, when there is clearly an imbalance in esteem and vigor in depth of research. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed an issue that the leading Leonardo experts, besides Kemp, ignore or deny the attribution, but don't make any stance at actively denying it. I am certain that if Kemp had joined together with Bambach, Zollner, Syson, Marani, Pedretti for some campaign against the attribution, it would be easier to say that the consensus is against the work, but Kemp is leading the crusade on his own, mostly. That's the issue, there are so many people researching for the attribution, but not enough historians taking that research seriously enough to create opposition research. These experts brush off the attribution but in doing so, they give it more weight by not expressing their views fully, if that makes sense. The most neutral statement I've found it "most experts are skeptical with an attribution to Leonardo". Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  Wikipedia does not and can not operate on the principle that articles should be written based on what is "obvious" to an editor to conform with what they have "read and understood." Here, it has already been determined that sources indicate that there are a substantial number of people who have expertise in the field who consider the painting authentic, and a number of people with equal expertise who don't, and we are not about to begin choosing sides between them. The assertion that there is "an imbalance in esteem and vigor in depth of research" would require an independent reliable source specifically identifying such an imbalance to be at all relevant. CNMall41 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm strongly convinced that the new sections should go under attribution. A description section simply describes the painting itself, the current description section expands too far out into the attribution so it would make sense to not worry about "balance" and simply move it to attribution. The current attribution section should be completely replaced with the new sections, since the current attribution section's first paragraph is in the background already, the second is uncited and the rest is a meaningless timeline of sources that would do better if implemented into the new sections. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that before you came along the article was written from the POV of its current owners, frankly. As the page stands now it is in a half way house; most of the original editor' claims are countered, but it still pretends to describe a work that has merit in its own right. Again, support the OP suggestion for a restruct. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed and just to be clear to 's comment, I'm suggesting we simply copy "Face and hands" through "Canvas" over the current attribution section and then work to implement some of the removed sources in the new attribution section. These "comments to different specific attributes" almost directly relate to the attribution of the work in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few unsourced assertions in the attribution section. Ideally, what is unsourced should be tagged , and researched to see if it can be sourced, and what can not be sourced will be discarded. What is currently sourced should be fleshed out to determine its significance. The latter part we can take some time with.  CNMall41 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think you're missing the point of what what an attribution section should be. It should discuss the varying opinions of scholars based on various features, exactly what the "Face and hands" through "Canvas" does. Otherwise it's simply a timeline of the attribution, or "history of attribution" – which if I made add, at the moment is literally a timeline in support of the attribution to Leonardo, since it is left over from when this article said in the lead that the painting was "confirmed" to be by Leonardo... We have no obligation to preserve the work of the SPA that came here before us and the information from the Pulitzer paragraph is more or less in the "Face and hands" through "Canvas" section already... This is truly the easiest solution, we already have an attribution section in the "Face and hands" through "Canvas" sections, it's just in the wrong place. What could the attribution section even be if the "Face and hands" through "Canvas" section and history section already exists? Aza24 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I disagree with what you seem to want as an attribution section doesn't mean I missed the point on what an attribution section in Wikipedia should be. We should be careful not to throw out content here that can be cleaned up, especially where there are sources that we can look into. It looks like BD2412 already did some of that, since there are several of the same sources, but obviously not all of them. I also get his point about being careful with separating things out. I see that the section quotes Asmus saying "the eyes are much wider set in the Isleworth painting" - that only describes the painting, and is not about attribution. The section quotes Pulitzer saying "densitometric tests on the planes of face and hands show a gradual change of tone values from dark to light which only [Leonardo] da Vinci, with his amazing eyesight, was capable of" - the first half of the sentence is really only describing the painting, the second half is arguing attribution based on that. Where the section quotes Spirodon saying he thinks "[t]he redness of the hands is probably due to a bad varnish that could be removed" - that also only describes the painting. Even Kemp's criticism of the background isn't really about attribution, since everybody agrees that it was added later.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  Basically, I'm not against some reorganization, but I also see the sense in keeping all of the commentary about specific parts of the painting together. We don't want the attribution section filled with descriptive comments that don't really say anything about attribution, and we don't want to split sentences up in ways that lose context.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: CNMall41, I advise you to read more carefully what Aza24 has said. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read very carefully. I would suggest you read what I wrote more carefully. Just because you may agree with their assertion doesn't mean I am wrong. Also, I left a comment about attribution already and would suggest you read that prior to getting into an edit war. It is WP:OR. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Are you ok with the current edit to the infobox....it was agreed earlier...see above. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to be continued under the attribution section above. However, note there was no agreement on wording, other than you saying that leaving out the attribution was something you agreed with which now surprises me with the reverts you have done. I have no issues discussing, but until we have a consensus here, saying anything would be a guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is a good and fair approach. But you last edit, now reverted, said "Leonardo and others", which absolutely concedes attribution. Re the section in the article body itself...I think it should be severely trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing the article 

message: Do we really need the tags any longer? The issues in the tags don't seem relevant. The article has been rewritten enough and the sourcing improved enough to resolve those problems, including changes made pursuant to consensus reached in discussions on this talk page.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we're on the right track now I think; if  and  agree, I would think can be removed as well. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

text: *agree with all this. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags