Talk:Mona Lisa/Archive 3

Prado copy

"The copy gives a better indication of what Lisa looked like at the time as the original is covered in cracked varnish." - while I see this statement is supported by two separate references, it's also obvious that the actual features of the two faces differ. I'm not sure how one decides which is the "better indication" of whoever the real subject was. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This has to do with the original appearance of the colours, not the facial features. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You have here an uploaded photo of the restored copy: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Gioconda_Prado_Espa%C3%B1a.png Forgive me as I don't manage well with the links, but if you are registered you can actualize the page now ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.72.187 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. But it seems the image is currently lacking some licensing information, so I do hope it won't be speedily deleted. Once it has its licensing information, I expect that it could be used here. Martinevans123 (talk)

I've added a licence tag and replaced the image with the restored version. I also rephrased the text since it's not about "what Lisa looked like", but what the Mona Lisa looked like Paul B (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very good. For some reason that name always brings to mind another famous classical beauty. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely you mean this stunner. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ye-hah! Or maybe thus inscrutable Leeza. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

ML left incomplete?

The article has this statement:

"Leonardo, later in his life, is said to have regretted "never having completed a single work"

This is used to imply that the ML was left incomplete, but I think the source from which it's taken probably has in mind L's famous comment, or question, "Tell me was anything ever done?" He was referring there not to his paintings, however, but to what he regarded as his real life's work, the publication of a series of book on versious subjects, most of them what we would today call scientific subjects (optics for example). None of them were ever completed, hence his despair. PiCo (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be a misinterpretation of that statement. He could also have meant simply that there was so much to be done that nothing could ever be said to be "completed" . Amandajm (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Reason why I reverted the change:

The image is widely recognised, caricatured, and sought out by visitors to the Louvre, and it is considered the most famous painting in the world.

• "sought out by visitors to the Louvre

This is an extraordinary understatement. The Mona Lisa is not simply "sought out" by people who happen to be visiting the Louvre. It is one of the specific reasons why visitors go to the Louvre.

• "It is considered the most famous painting in the world"

This sentence is sheer nonsense!

The tag "is considered" is pussy-footing language (weasel words, in Wiki terms) that have been devised to sidestep what pedantic rule-enforcers perceive as inappropriate or "peacock" language.

"Most famous" describes a fact, not a way of perception. The fact is that the Mona Lisa is enormously famous, and no other painting is as famous. That makes it, uniquely, the most famous painting in the world.

You can't say that a thing is "considered to be famous". It either is famous, or it isn't famous.

• Fame

The word "famous" is usually excluded from any Wikipedia description or definition for the reason that those people or objects that are included in Wikipedia need to be notable, in order to justify inclusion as the subject of a whole article. This means that if the painting was not at all famous, there would be no article on it.

However, in some cases mention of a subject's fame is inevitable. If the amount of fame that is afforded a particular subject is so great that the subject seems to outshine every other of the same category, then Fame must be discussed.

e.g. Marilyn Monroe, Leonardo da Vinci, the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare, Harry Potter

Marilyn Monroe was not simply a "blonde bombshell"; she was the most famous of all Hollywood actresses.

Leonardo was not simply a "Renaissance painter"; he was the most famous painter, even within his own lifetime.

Harry Potter is not simply a series of children's books; it is the most famous series of childrens' books ever written.

In each one of these cases, the unprecedented Fame ought to be mentioned within the introduction, because it is essential to a clear understanding of the social and historical importance of the subject.

• If the weasel words "is considered" are going to be added, then the question must be asked "Who considers it thus?"

This starts a ridiculous cycle: The painting is famous because millions of people know about it, and the painting is "considered" famous because millions of people know that millions of people know that millions of people know that it is famous, and those very same millions of people who know that it is famous are the same as the millions of people who consider it famous who are exactly the same millions of people whose knowledge of the painting accounts for its fame in the first place!

• Finally, there is no hard-and-fast rule in the Manual of style. Every case needs dealing with as appropriate.
• Since the present quote sums up the paintings fame, please leave it in place.
• Let me also point out that Alan Riding, in one of the other two sources given doesn't say that it is "considered the most famous". He states without hesitation that it is "the most famous painting in the world".[1]

Amandajm (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ballpoint pen Mona Lisa replica

The above-noted artwork, titled Mona a'la Mace and drawn in ballpoint pen by noted ballpoint artist Lennie Mace, currently appears on the Ballpoint pen artwork page, and was also recently featured on Wiki's main-page "Did you know...?" section. It's the most intriguing of the multitude Mona replicas I've ever come across and I thought it may be worthy of mention here on the "Mona Lisa" page within the "Legacy" section. The artist is well-known within contemporary art circles, and quality art-data is obviously already available in "commons"... Would've inserted it here myself but i noticed a LOCK on the page. Any assistance & concensus is appreciated. Penwatchdog (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are so many copies and versions of the Mona Lisa that think it is time that this became an article in itself.

I'm not inclined to pu this pic into the article. The two that are there now are in the article because they were ground-breaking works of avant garde, while this pic is merely a copy in a different media.

But if I start another article, after I finish referencing the article that I am currently working on, I will definitely put it in.

Thanks for drawing it to my attention.

Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have completed the new article Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations and went-public-with/moved it. I have also just added a "Main|Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations" link to the Legacy section of this Mona Lisa article. By all means please check it out and offer suggestions/advice. I'll next figure which point may be of interest for use in DYK. Do keep in touch. Penwatchdog (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Young Mona Lisa has more beautiful smile!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Exposed „younger“ Mona Lisa, in Geneva, Switzerland. Original cloth, guaranteeing Swiss Foundation Mona Lisa, painted in the 1505th by Leonardo da Vinci, the picture has appeared Croatian Television, women in just twenty years, only after Leonardo, who invented the parachute, painted the most famouse picture ever Mona Lisa, but "younger" Mona Lisa has more beautiful smile!78.3.208.14 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So where can we see the picture? Amandajm (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Handicapped/Disabled

Please can you edit this page, some word says "a handicapped woman' should be changed to 'a disabled woman' because handicapped is offensive word for disabled people, this word is used to describe disabled people as 'hand-in-cap'. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondkool (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that the first "disabled", describing the woman, has now been removed. Normally I don't think it would be needed, but in his case does it maybe help explain the purpose of the protest? But looking again at the source, I see that her own reported words were translated as "why don't you let handicapped people in?" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Handicapped is the word used in the source, including in a quotation attributed to the woman herself - though I rather doubt she was speaking English, so it's unlikely to be the actual word she used. A solution would be to put 'handicapped woman' in quotation marks. BTW, objections to the word itself are often based on the completely false etymology asserted by the OP. [2]. Dis-abled is hardly positive. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very curious "etymology"; but a useful article. However, if "disabilities" is good enough for Paralympic Games, then I guess it's also going to be good enough here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the first "disabled" bit because I don't see it as necessary to label the woman as "disabled". The matter about which she was protesting is what requires mention. But on the other hand, perhaps we are seeking to excuse her ridiculous behaviour at throwing paint at a picture which didn't even belong to the museum she was objecting to. Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think her own disability may have lent her more justification. And there's not much red in it, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant because she is protesting on behalf of a group to which she belongs. Re 'disabled', I was merely pointing that it's often impossible to distinguish the logic favouring the current PC term from that used to denigrate others. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, she was "lame". Perhaps some editors here would see her as "well lame"? But I think this source may be better. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK! Whatever you think is the best way of expressing it! Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So if we use that source, is it any more, or less, acceptable to describe the attacker as "lame" rather than "disabled"? Or does it not matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if one is really going to be concerned about P.C. one does not describe an individual as being "disabled" but as "having a disability". Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait! Let's re-think that! The polite term is "challenged"... We are, I believe, permitted to say that she was "physically challenged" Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Update! "impaired" might be current choice of the word! She was "mobility impaired". Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mobility impairment issues"? Maybe just using quotes is easier, even if less PC. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go with the quotation, otherwise we get into the pure horror of unrestrained PC lingo. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go with the quote. Put it in marks so that if anybody doesn't like it, they can complain to the source. Amandajm (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we call her a nut-case, while we are at it? Amandajm (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done, again. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Colour-correction

See Section 25 archive 2: Edit request-The colour of Mona Lisa's sky is green D8D8 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you contact, via their Talk Page, the editor who made this revision: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the words 'blue' and 'green' appear nowhere in the article it is unclear what "edit" you actually want. In any case it is not meaningful or useful to say the sky is green. It was painted blue, but the varnish has yellowed. That's all. So the paint is blue, but appears greenish. Both statements are true in different ways. See the section on this talk page above. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No rush yet. It seems that experts have confirmed there are two Mona Lisas. Merge and re-name to Mona Lisas may start soon.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's nonsense.

• ''The latest carbon dating test on the canvas of the ‘Earlier Version’ was performed by the ETH (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zurich and confirms a dating between 1410 and 1455 (95.4% probability) and more precisely within that time range between 1425 and 1450 (68.2% probability). It is therefore highly unlikely that this painting would have been executed beyond the turn of the 16th century, and the first documentary evidence of Leonardo painting Mona Lisa is the eyewitness account of Agostino Vespucci in 1503."

1. This analysis defines the approximate age of the canvas. There is a 95% chance it was made between 1410 and 1455. That means any time between 1410 and 1455. Leonardo was born in 1452. He could not have painted this before the age of say 20, therefore 1472. At that date, given the evidence, the canvas was already at least 17 years old and possibly 60 years old. OK, so we accept that in the 1470s Leonardo used a canvas that was either rather old or really quite old. If the painting was done in the 1480, the canvas had been around for 70-20 odd years. If the painting was done in the 1490s, then the canvas had been around for 80-30 odd years. If the painting was don in 1503, then the canvas had been around for 90 to 40 odd years. An acceptable date might put the painting in the 1490s, but would certainly not put it in the 1480s, let alone the 1470s. So, if the painting under discussion is in fact "original", then whether the canvas was 80-30 years old or 90-40 year old years proves absolutely nothing. It does not create a much greater likelihood of the painting in question being the earlier of the two. It merely informs us that the canvas was not new, not in 1503, but neither was it new in 1490.
2. Any successful forger uses a canvas of the right century, and paint that will stand up to analysis.

• "Previously, four tests undertaken by Prof. John Asmus, nuclear physicist, who digitized brushstrokes of both paintings, established scientifically that both the ‘Earlier Version’ and the ‘Mona Lisa' in the Louvre would have been executed by the same artist. This brushstroke analysis identifies conclusively an artist in the same way that DNA or fingerprints identify criminals."

The business about the brushstrokes "proving" the author like fingerprints is nonsense. Any skilled artist is likely to employ a wide variety of brushstrokes. In the case of a highly calligraphic artist like Vincent van Gogh, certain brushstrokes, and the particular combinations of brushstrokes may be characteristic, and give a very good indication. However, the smoother the work, the harder it is to analyse the brushstrokes. Leonardo's manner of applying the paint is extremely smooth.

• Stylistically, the painting simply doesn't stand up.

All the details of the folds of the sleeves and the drape over the shoulder are in exactly the same position, but are completely lacking in any finesse. In other words, they are very accurate copies, not masterly creations.

The painting appears to have been copied from the Mona Lisa at a date when the original was already not new. There are quite a number of indicators, which I won't go into here and now.

Basically, I get rather sick of "experts" coming up with "scientific" proofs. This is a very nice copy.

Amandajm (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if there were two, the name would remain the same. See Virgin of the Rocks. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And come to think of it the fact that's it's on canvas at all is pretty fishy. Leonardo always painted on panel. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Amandajm (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Clean-up & Talk-page archiving

I'd like to improve this article by making it a smoother read. As it stands, the article is a bit, excuse me, clunky; more than likely the product of too many cooks in the kitchen! I don't want to intrude here, so I'm just asking out of respect, but I think the article needs a good once-over. Also, in anticipation of the probable/upcoming DYK appearance of the Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations wiki, and subsequent traffic it may direct to this Main Article, it's in everyone's best interest to dust, polish and smooth-out the rough edges. This article can also be condensed without losing any of the facts; content is not the point of my suggestion. The "Mona Lisa replicas" wiki is just freshly on line for DYK, so I have a little free time to spend with this Main Article, not that it would require too much time anyway.

Also, I'd like to go ahead and create a file cabinet to condense all of this; this Mona Lisa talk-page is 90% out-dated, and clogging-the-flow with more than needs to remain visible. I'd like to start pronto, but I'd like to hear some feedback before making any moves. Of course all my edits will be transparent and I'll make them a-section-at-a-time so everyone can follow along behind me. All best intentions, no agenda. Clock's ticking... Penwatchdog (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Go for it! Amandajm (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just completed an edit to the INTRO. Just some rearranging and recomposing. Added one small point (since 1797 at Louvre) but also provided the source (which may in fact be from a magazine excerpt of a source you've already cited). If this first edit is satisfactory, I'll proceed doing the same section-by-section in stages so my actions can be easily tracked. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone may also want to look into the unsourced "Katie and Mona Lisa" children's book I just noticed in the "Legacy" section. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Now also revised the "Title & subject" section (previously "Subject & title"). I reversed wording of that header in keeping with the order the subsequent facts are listed. No major cuts or additions at all; just revised to condense and clarity facts already noted in the article as it'd existed. Next: "History" section. But that's all for this sitting. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving completed

Next: will begin section-by-section re-write to condense, clarify and re-compose existing content. After a few hours sleep and a brunch date. Penwatchdog (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Sorry about this, but it was definitely better the way it was, for quite a number of reasons:

The Lona Misa (La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo[1]) is a Half-Length Portrait of a woman by the Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci, which has been acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."[2] The painting, thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, is in oil on a poplar panel, and is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506.[1] It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Musée du Louvre in Paris.[1] The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

• This is the text, as it was. I'll go through it.

1. What is the subject? The Mona Lisa (La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo[1]) is a half-length portrait of a woman by the Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci
2. Why is it notable? ......which has been acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."[2] (This is a direct quote including "the best known" which is in the body of the text of the cited article.)
3. Who, when, where? The painting, thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, is in oil on a poplar panel, and is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506.[1] It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Musée du Louvre in Paris.[1]
4. Summary of reasons why it is so famous. The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

• The second statement about the work (i.e. "best known.....most parodied etc") is what justifies the article and all the palaver about this painting. The fact that it is the most famous painting in the world is not a fact to go last in the Introduction It is the most remarkable fact about the subject of the article.
• "....is considered the most famous...." This is waffle. A discussion on this was on this page but has been archived. The notion that something is "considered famous" is ridiculous. It either is famous, or it isn't famous. Otherwise every person who knows the painting considers it famous and it is famous because they all know it and consider it famous.
• The following sentences have two problems. They seriously play down the the technical ingenuity and the "total effect" of the painting.

The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as "enigmatic,"[3] contributes to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1] Leonardo's subtle modeling of forms, atmospheric qualities, and monumentality of the composition are also factors adding to the painting's acclaim.

The other problem is that the parts of the sentence don't link: Repeat the name: Leonardo's subtle modelling of forms, Leonardo's atmospheric qualities, Leonardo's monumentality of composition. It becomes apparent that Leonardo doesn't own these characteristics; it is the painting that owns them.

• The sentence that follows describes all the reasons for the paintings fame.

The ambiguity of the subject's expression, frequently described as enigmatic,[3] the monumentality of the composition, the subtle modeling of forms and the atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.[1]

The enigmatic expression may fascinate the average tourist, and may have been deliberately and obviously imitated, but the composition, the modelling and the atmosphere are the factors which have had long-lasting impact on the history of art.

I'm adding the word "which" after enigmatic, to make the sequence clearer.

Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I see

And now you've got far-too-much-bold up front there again, Mona, which is already distracting and clogging up the intro; a little top-heavy. And do you really want to leave "the most, the most, the most, the most, the most" as part of the first sentence of an encyclopedic entry? Because Because Because Because Because of the wonderful things he does ?? I direct you to have a look at the Guernica wiki… first paragraph: specifics relevant to the painting's creation. second paragraph: explanations of its notoriety. Clean. Smooth. Also have a look at Last Supper… one paragraph: who-did-it? when? what-is-it? Nary a mention about fame in the intro. (I can feel you right now getting wound up, preparing comparisons about how there are no comparisons between Mona Lisa's fame and that of other paintings. Save your time, I won't be back) Starry Night? The Scream? Check out how alternate titles and language credits are dealt with. Now take a look back at the Mona Lisa intro.

My insertion of the word considered was to cover the subsequent claim of most. I can describe someone as the most annoying person but that wouldn't mean everyone thinks so. It may not be a good idea to assume Mona Lisa is "the most" anything, either.

Thanks very much. You've just reminded me that I care far too much, and I now realize my input is not needed here. You're right. This article is just fine as it is; perfect, come to think of it. How silly of me to think it could be any better! Heck, I don't know anything about art. Writing either. What was I thinking?!

I'm just glad I didn't get as far as the "aesthetics" section, which barely provides sources for five paragraphs worth of clumsy explanations of subjective topics which are arguably most open to interpretation. Boy, that would've been a real waste of my time, thinking I could do any better. Shame on me. I'll just go back to chewing my toenails; you'll not hear from me again. Oh, "illusionism"... really? Wonderfulism. Penwatchdog (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "the most the most the most" is that it summarises the fame of the painting better than anything else does. These statements cannot be made about any other painting.

The possibility is to find two or three referenced quotations that say the same things, and that will be clumsier than what this particular person has written.

With regards to "is considered", the sequence starts with "has been acclaimed as......." and that covers it.

Saying that something is "the most beautiful" or "most annoying" would be to make value judgements. "Most famous" is not a value judgement. If millions of people know the painting well enough to consider it "the most famous painting", then it is the most famous painting. Is the Eiffel Tower the most famous structure in Paris, or do only some people consider that it is?

The words "atmospheric illusionism" come straight out of the Louvre website. They could have said "atmospheric perspective", except that "illusionism" probably sums up what is happening here, which is very odd!.

You are pointing me in the direction of several introductions that are not very well written and in each case fail to announce the significance of a very significant work.

• Guernica: This Introduction is good, in general because in this case the subject requires some explanation. However details like "by German and Italian warplanes" are unnecessary in the first sentence. I would be writing them out and leaving those details to the History section. The sentences follow each other logically. The fact that the painting gained iconic status is dealt with.

With regard to the others:

• Leonardo's Last Supper. The introduction fails to indicate the fame of the painting. Because of this, it isn't an adequate introduction for that work of art. It needs to be worked on.
• Starry Night. The intro does mention that it is one of van Gogh's "well known works" but fails to deal with its significance and its formal qualities as a painting. There is no indication of why it is a significant work.
• The Scream, well, there are four of them, which makes the introduction just a little more difficult. The introduction gave no indication of its significance in modern culture, so I fixed it with an appropriate quote.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the other intros. I'll do some rewriting.

I don't want to put you off, but there is no point in fixing what isn't broken. There are a great deal of badly written stuff that does need rearranging.

The section of the article dealing with aesthetics does indeed need referencing. It might have been drawn from Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't know.

Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

When was it painted?

• The lead says the Mona Lisa "is believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506."
• The infobox says: "Year c. 1503–1519"
• Under "History", the article says: "Leonardo da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa in 1503 or 1504 in Florence, Italy. According to Leonardo's contemporary, Giorgio Vasari, 'after he had lingered over it four years, left it unfinished'."

Is the infobox wrong about when the painting was finish (or at any rate stopped), or is there more to this than meets the eye? —sroc (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is a bit confusing because some sources express more certainty about the dating than others. The lead is sourced to the Louvre website, which says Mona Lisa was "doubtless painted in Florence between 1503 and 1506 ... However, Leonardo seems to have taken the completed portrait to France rather than giving it to the person who commissioned it". This seems to be saying that the painting was finished within four years (contradicting Vasari). Martin Kemp (in "Leonardo da Vinci", Oxford Art Online) says "it is difficult to assign a single, finished, wholly autograph painting to the years 1500 to 1508 ... The painting generally regarded as the central product of these years is the so-called Mona Lisa (Paris, Louvre), although even it presents some problems of dating." Kemp then makes reference to Vasari's account and suggests that "the appearance of the picture lends support to the idea that it was painted over an extended period, since the craquelure of the face suggests that it was executed at a different time from the hands, which exhibit the thinness of his latest manner of painting." Bambach, Stern, and Manges, in Leonardo da Vinci, master draftsman (2003, 234), say that in 1503 Leonardo "begins planning the lost Leda and the Swan composition ..., as well as the Mona Lisa ... pictures that he probably continues to refine until 1516–17." The article could probably use some tweaks to reconcile the sections and to clarify that the authorities differ, particularly on the completion date. The infobox will always be misleading because infoboxes do not convey this kind of nuance well. Ewulp (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, Ewulp! This is interesting indeed, and I'm somewhat surprised this isn't detailed in the article itself. Perhaps this can be added in the "History" section? Perhaps the infobox can be further clarified with a link to that section or a footnote? —sroc (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my crude attempt at revising the "History" section, for your consideration:

Leonardo da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa in 1503 or 1504 in Florence, Italy. Although the Louvre states that it was "doubtless painted painted between 1503 and 1506", there is some difficulty in confirming the actual dates with certainty. According to Leonardo's contemporary, Giorgio Vasari, "after he had lingered over it four years, left it unfinished". Leonardo, later in his life, is said to have regretted "never having completed a single work".

In 1516 Leonardo was invited by King François I to work at the Clos Lucé near the king's castle in Amboise. It is believed that he took the Mona Lisa with him and continued to work after he moved to France. Art historian Martin Kemp has concluded that da Vinci probably continued refining the work until 1516 or 1517.

On his death the painting was inherited, among other works, by his pupil and assistant Salaì. The king bought the painting for 4,000 écus and kept it at Palace of Fontainebleau, where it remained until given to Louis XIV. Louis XIV moved the painting to the Palace of Versailles. After the French Revolution, it was moved to the Louvre, but spent a brief period in the bedroom of Napoleon in the Tuileries Palace.

Is this a fair reflection of the sources? —sroc (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like a great improvement. I took the liberty of dropping it into the article with minor modification—Bambach is my source of the 1516-1517 end date; but if this is also in Kemp's Leonardo Da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man we can cite that too. Ewulp (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! I was only going from your comment which I must have misread. I haven't checked the sources directly, other than the quote from the Louvre website (I don't have a copy of Kemp or Bambach). —sroc (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Please add External links:

• Mona Lisa for sale. The web site where you can buy part of virtual image.

Przemmyslaw1 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Wikipedia is not for advertsing. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013

In the point "2. History" in the first paragraph there is a grammar mistake "doubtless painted painted between"(one painted too much) 93.232.190.156 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting that. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Mona Lisa (La Joconde) is a half-length portrait of a woman by Leonardo da Vinci which was probably completed between 1503 and 1506, with further refinement continuing until 1517. Though the painting is thought to be of Lisa del Giocondo, a lack of definitive evidence has long fueled alternative theories as to the sitter's identity, including that it may represent Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. It has been held in the Louvre in Paris since 1797 and is acclaimed as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world."Painting: Leonardo da Vinci

Edit request: under Legacy

Contesting: "Elle a chaud au cul" literally translated: "she has a hot ass". This is not a literal translation. "au cul" means "at ass", or could be interpreted "at [her] ass". Suggestion: replace "literally translated" with "meaning", or put in the literal translation "She has heat at [her] ass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.142.5 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. "Meaning", as per suggestion Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"She has heat at [her] ass" is virtually gibberish in English. The translation "she has a hot ass" means the same thing, but in intelligable English - "hot ass" is heat at the "ass". Translation is not about word-for-word duplication, but about creating a coherent equivalent sentence. For example "C'est la Vie" is normally, and properly, translated "that's life" not "It's the life". Paul B (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014 - Mona Lisa page

Dear Wikipedia,

on 2012 Mondadori, one of Italy's biggest editors of art studies, published a research on Mona Lisa's landscapes. A geomorphologist identified those landscapes with an accuracy never reached before. Since its publication that research has been having worldwide resonance. The information is already present on the Italian version of Mona Lisa ( Gioconda ) I would be pleased to let the anglophone world know about that, by writing the following text at the end of the chapter 'aesthetics' ( after the words '...for the lack of clear evidence [39].' ) :

" A recent research (1) by a geomorphology professor at Urbino university and an artist-photographer revealed astonishing likenesses of the Mona Lisa's landscapes to some views in the Montefeltro region in the Italian provinces of Pesaro Urbino and Rimini (2).

(1) Rosetta Borchia and Olivia Nesci, <<Codice P. Atlante illustrato del reale paesaggio della Gioconda>> , Mondadori Electa, 2012, ISBN 978883709277

(2) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article3612516.ece "

I think the following words should have a hyperlink : Urbino, Montefeltro, Pesaro, Rimini, in order to let the reader identify quickly which places he is reading about. I numbered the notes as 1 and 2 for convenience. Thank you very much in advance, I'm at your disposal for any clarification you may need Giacomo Quaresima

Please note that the same publication is mentioned also in the French page (La Joconde) :

" Le paysage[modifier | modifier le code] Une récente étude56 d'une professeur de géomorphologie de l'université d'Urbinoet d'une peintre-photographe a révélé des correspondances surprenantes entre les paysages de la Joconde et des vues dans le territoire de Montefeltro dans les provinces Italiennes de Pesaro Urbino et Rimini. " Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added this information and the references. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Amandajm. I attach hereby the link to the webpage of 8th International Conference of Geomorphology (Paris, August 2013) where the research was discussed and approved. The scientifique comittee was composed by some 60 university professors from all the world. http://www.geomorphology-iag-paris2013.com/en/detailed-programme The work was presented with the title "The Da Vinci Landscape Code; Exploring the Panorama behind La Gioconda" If anyone wants to see it I can let you download the abstract. Thank you very much for the cooperation. Best Regards. Giacomo Quaresima. --Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On the note where the book is mentioned ("Codice P. Atlante..."), could you make a hyperlink on the title of the book to the following webpage ? http://www.electaweb.com/catalogo/scheda/978883709277/it Thank you very much in advance --Giacomo Quaresima (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Please update the following:

Title and subject / "German experts crack the ID of ‘Mona Lisa’". MSN. 14 January 2008.

The text content of this page is no longer available from Today.com but is still available from other source. Retrieved 1 May 2014. New Link to the same content: http://omnigp.com/IDofMonaLisa.html

OptimalWebmaster (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I have added updated the citation using the "archiveurl" parameter of the {{cite web}} template. However, the date in which this snapshot was created is missing and would be very helpful in making the citation better. Mz7 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This request is pure spam -- the username is a big hint. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Landscape

Landscape: The main article barely mentions the landscape and limits that to one opinion (reference number 34 in the article), that the landscape is “imaginary” despite compelling research by Starnazzi [1], Pezzutto [2] and others that it represents an actual place. It seems odd that an opinion is left unchallenged in the main article and findings that appear in peer-reviewed journals are relegated to the “Speculation about Mona Lisa” article. 1. Starnazzi, Carlo, Leonardo (Da Vinci.), and Carlo Pedretti. Codici & macchine. Cartei & Bianchi, 2010. 2. Pezzutto, Donato. “Leonardo’s Val di Chiana Map in the Mona Lisa,” Cartographica, 2011, 149-159. http://http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/carto.46.3.149/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpezzutto (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Please add the following, as the final sentences in “Aesthetics”: There have been many claims matching the landscape to specific views of actual places. A 2011 article hypothesizes that the entire landscape is a map of the Val di Chiana projected using topographic perspective. Please cite this using the above reference 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mona_Lisa&action=edit&section=13# — Preceding. Frank Zöllner uses similar citations in a recent chapter contribution (page 75). See Zöllner, Frank, 2013, “From the Face to the Aura. Leonardo da Vinci’s Sfumato and the History of Female Portraiture”, in Inventing Faces. Rhetorics of Portraiture between Renaissance and Modernism. ed. Körte, Monika, Deutscher Kunstverlag, München, 67-83. ISBN: 9783422072534 http://www.gko.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kunstgeschichte/pdf/zoellner/Publikationen/unselbst_Publi/From_the_Face_to_Aura.pdfunsigned comment added by 174.94.31.59 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 173.239.135.82 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)174.94.31.59 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Francis' purchase

It is state under the section Value: "...that Francis I bought Mona Lisa in 1504 or 1506". Francis I would have been 12 years old at this time. Is this correct? 76.88.61.180 (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Remove "as firmly as that had been the use, before". Clumsy is too kind a word. Should read [outlines (sfumato), "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes" (Gombrich).] The woman appears alive to an unusual measure, which Leonardo achieved by his new method not to draw the outlines, "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes" (Gombrich), as firmly as that had been the use, before (sfumato).[34]

23.242.84.163 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

'monumentality of the composition' is opinion, surely?

I move that this vague opinion should be removed from the text. Other elements of the lead text explain why the composition of the Mona Lisa could be considered monumental, but it is an opinion. I don't even think it's universally agreed upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.7.37 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mona Lisa - Request of editing

Dear Wikipedia, in 2011 (first edition) the Italian student and researcher Carla Glori in collaboration with the graphic researcher Ugo Cappello has published the book “Enigma Leonardo: decifrazioni e scoperte. La Gioconda – in memoria di Bianca” ( Edizioni Cappello, Savona, Italy, 2011 and second edition 2012). The thesis of the book reached the scientific identification of the landscape of the portrait through a constellation of twelve coordinates, having historical and geographical documentary evidence and nowadays really existing. The research is verifiable and falsifiable, according to the criterion of “falsiability” of Popper. You can consult some documented didactic excerpts of the research that Carla Glori has partially published for the internet users at the following links: http://www.carlaglori.com/gioconda/ http://www.carlaglori.com/gioconda/la-ricerca/

This innovative research on January 2011 had worldwide resonance, starting from the advance news of The Guardian, before the publication of the thesis; http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jan/09/mona-lisa-bobbio-da-vinci .

The peace of information I give you can be synthesized with the following text at the end of the chapter 'aesthetics' ( after the words :.” Italian provinces of Pesaro, Urbino and Rimini.[42][43].”.

The thesis published in 2011 by Carla Glori identified Mona Lisa as Bianca Giovanna Sforza, the daughter of Ludovico il Moro, and localized the landscape of the portrait in Bobbio through a constellation of twelve coordinates, having historical and geographical documentary evidence and nowadays really existing. (1). The legendary bridge surnamed “ponte Gobbo” (or also “Devil’s bridge” as a reference to a miracle of saint Colombano) is the first and most important coordinate. Carla Glori claims her theory is verifiable and falsifiable, according to the criterion of “falsiability” by Popper. The book is a multidisciplinary research, and it is coincident with the historical reconstruction of the Sforzas-story and the mysterious death of Bianca. And the Malaspina-Dal Verme castle of Bobbio - the unexpected location having a well-grounded documentation – is a part of the historical reconstruction that the Italian researcher brings to light.

(1) Enigma Leonardo: decifrazioni e scoperte. La Gioconda – In memoria di Bianca”, 2012 (second edition), Edizioni Cappello, Savona, Italy, ISBN 978-88-96552-02-5

Please note that the same publication is mentioned also in the French page of Wikipedia (La Joconde) : Une historienne de l'art, Carla Glori, chercheuse à l'université italienne de Savone, affirme en 2011 que le pont médiéval à trois arches qui apparaît sur l'épaule gauche est une référence à Bobbio. (notes 74 ↑ (it) Carla Glori, Ugo Cappello, Enigma Leonardo, Cappello Edizioni,‎ 2011.)

I'm at your disposal for any clarification you may need. I thank you in advance.

My best regards - Lina Rossi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lina rossi (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

The mona Lisa was a famous person if she was drawn by the famous Leonardo de Vinchi 77.89.146.78 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mona Lisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080116210319/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/22652514/?GT1=10755 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22652514/?GT1=10755
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714103850/http://www.time.com:80/time/2007/crimes/2.html to http://www.time.com/time/2007/crimes/2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Aesthetics section references

The first three paragraphs of the "Aesthetics" section make numerous subjective claims without citation, and appear to be POV / OR. To give just one example: "He effectively modified this formula to create the visual impression of distance between the subject and the observer." According to whom? If this is so, it should be simple enough to find a citation to support this. If no cite can be found, then it's just one editor's subjective opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Leonardo referred[where?] to a seemingly simple "formula" for a seated female figure: images of the seated Madonna, which were widespread at the time.[citation needed]
• He effectively modified this formula to create the visual impression of distance between the subject and the observer;[original research?]
• Only her gaze is fixed on the observer and seems to welcome them to this silent look of communication.[original research?]
• Since the brightly lit face is practically framed by much darker elements (hair, veil, shadows), the observer's attraction to her is brought out to an even greater extent.[original research?]

I think this sentence does not need citation. Bod (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• There is no indication of an intimate dialogue between the woman and the observer as in the Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, painted by Raphael about ten years later and undoubtedly[original research?] influenced by Leonardo's work.
• The blurred outlines, graceful figure, dramatic contrasts of light and dark, and overall feeling of calm are characteristic of Leonardo's style.[original research?]
• Owing to the expressive synthesis that Leonardo achieved between sitter and landscape, it is arguable whether Mona Lisa should be considered as a traditional portrait, for it represents an ideal rather than a real woman.[original research?]
• The sense of overall harmony achieved in the painting (especially apparent in the sitter's faint smile), reflects the idea of a link connecting humanity and nature.[original research?]

There are eight sentences here. Which one do you think does not need citation? Also, what point are you making by listing all eight sentences? Finally, why did you sign your post in the middle and not at the end? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

"Mona Lisa bares a strong resemblance" should be "Mona Lisa bears a strong resemblance"

Pretty basic error really for such an important page

87.81.196.174 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for reporting the error. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I've been hacking away some of the original research and copyright violations in the "Aesthetics" section which really needs some attention, perhaps from someone who can write something better than my bearly literate attempts. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta watch out for those Mona Lisa bears. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Too right, there's a lot of them about --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mona Lisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.monalisamania.com/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mona Lisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130514091530/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Art-Mona-Who.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Art-Mona-Who.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100716204935/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVp53azA2HoJZZCxJ8aul8d9tJhgD9A0PM900 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVp53azA2HoJZZCxJ8aul8d9tJhgD9A0PM900

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (date of the painting / 13-09-16)

The article quotes the Louvre as saying the painting was "doubtless painted between 1503 and 1506", but: (a) the linked source says "doubtless started in 1503" and (b) it appears to be a translation error (the French version has "probablement"). I suspect a previous French version had "sans doute", translated too literally as "doubtless", even though it means "probably". I would argue the current French version to be authoritative.129.199.156.30 (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes below. --> 70.114.175.140 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing this. Ewulp (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Title and subject: Please add possibly Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory.

References: Roni Kempler: Who the Mona Lisa Is 2015, TXu 1-954-682, Google Site. Roni Kempler's contributions, Mona Lisa (painting by Leonardo da Vinci), Encyclopædia Britannica OldRaji (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Pigments and Medium?

The article doesn't discuss the pigments and medium used in the Mona Lisa. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

citing sources

For help citing sources go to citationmachine.net

Smarty614 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mona Lisa. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latrobe.edu.au/marketing/assets/podcasts/2008/opinion-nov2808-audio.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417061736/http://focus.louvre.fr/en/mona-lisa/compare/scientific-tests to https://focus.louvre.fr/en/mona-lisa/compare/scientific-tests

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) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please consider adding this new link to Mona Lisa External Links:

* Mona Lisa and The Body of The Earth: A Talk By Martin Kemp at The Laguna Art Museum (11.15.16) https://vimeo.com/190934578 FoxyJudyJudea (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mona Lisa and The Body of The Earth: A Talk By Martin Kemp at The Laguna Art Museum (11.15.16)

Please consider adding this new link to Mona Lisa External Links:

Mona Lisa and The Body of The Earth: A Talk By Martin Kemp at The Laguna Art Museum (11.15.16) https://vimeo.com/190934578 FoxyJudyJudea (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of L.H.O.O.Q

It is said that L.H.O.O.Q means "she has a hot ass". Do we mean that her ass is hot as in warm or that it is sexy? Because "Elle a chaud au cul" does not mean that it is "sexy", but warm. In french, a sexy ass would be translated by "Elle a un beau cul". A Lazy Photon (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The artist defined it as "there is fire down below" (see L.H.O.O.Q.). Which doesn't explain why he drew a mustache on the postcard. Randy Kryn 13:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

Current text states: "The restored painting is from a slightly different perspective than the original Mona Lisa, leading to the speculation that it is part of the world's first stereoscopic pair.[83][84][85]"

As reference [83] did indeed make this claim, this is not technically wrong. However, it needs an update. A more recent study has demonstrated that there is in fact no reliable stereoscopic depth when combining the original Mona Lisa with the Prado version.

I suggest an addition as follows: "However, the a more recent report has demonstrated that this stereoscopic pair in fact gives no reliable stereoscopic depth.[86]"

Reference 86 should read as follows: Brooks, K. R. (2017). Depth Perception and the History of Three-Dimensional Art: Who Produced the First Stereoscopic Images? i-Perception, 8(1), 2041669516680114. doi:10.1177/2041669516680114 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2041669516680114

Ref 86 is freely available as an open access document. Locks 00 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for your contributions!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested clarification

On 21 August 1911, the painting was stolen from the Louvre. The next day, painter Louis Béroud walked into the museum and went to the Salon Carré where the Mona Lisa had been on display for five years, only to find four iron pegs on the wall.

This text leaves a question in the reader's mind. I suggest the following change, if this is inded what happened:

On 21 August 1911, the painting was stolen from the Louvre. The theft was not discovered until the next day, when painter Louis Béroud walked into the museum and went to the Salon Carré where the Mona Lisa had been on display for five years, only to find four iron pegs on the wall.

86.141.248.162 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A good suggestion, and done. Ewulp (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

your mona lisa facts are all wrong and i would like to fix them plz and thx it would also be nice how the heck do you make a fileYOUR james FIGHT (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)kelton  Not done WP:TEAHOUSE ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mona Lisa. 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/20131105050239/http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/Englisch/news/monalisa.html to http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/Englisch/news/monalisa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125184249/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046208817.html to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046208817.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F08%2F01%2Fwmona01.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F08%2F01%2Fixworld.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730003620/http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/mona-lisa-%E2%80%93-portrait-lisa-gherardini-wife-francesco-del-giocondo to http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/mona-lisa-%E2%80%93-portrait-lisa-gherardini-wife-francesco-del-giocondo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120716/http://eh.net/hmit/compare to http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320203734/http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/panorama.htm to http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/panorama.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Elements and principles of design

Do you think that adding elements and principles of design to the article is important or it would fill the article with unnecessary information??--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

World War Two

The following source (by Noah Charney) could be used to provide information regarding the painting's status during the period around the Nazi occupation:

• Charney, Noah (June 30, 2015). "Did the Nazis also steal the Mona Lisa?". CNN. Turner Broadcasting System. Retrieved 6 August 2017. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4890:FAC5:8AED:1CC9 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

Please add the following to the See also section (Mona Lisa is on the list).

• List of stolen paintings
  2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4890:FAC5:8AED:1CC9 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

The Mona Lisa is one of the most famous painting that out of 500 people there would be at least 450 people at the painting. 2605:E000:7C09:3700:400A:EE9A:C5CF:54A6 (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 04:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nude couple in the painting?

Did da Vinci paint a nude couple into his painting Mona Lisa? The image on the page can be greatly enlarged, until all the brush strokes can be seen (click on the image until the full-enlargement appears), and the paint is extensively cracked. But look very close to the left end of the lake, and glance up at the rock formation a little bit. There seems to be a clear image of a nude couple from the waist up, probably a woman and man. The woman is on the left, with her breasts evident, and her right hand seems to be resting on the man's left forearm. The man, seemingly balding, has his left arm extended and shows a strong back. The pair face each other. The brush strokes which create the pair seem observable, and I'm not seeing any of the cracks in the paint contributing to the image of the mildly-embracing pair except possibly a crack running into the woman's neck. This scenerio, of course, can just be my mind creating something out of random shapes and colors, yet on the other hand it seems, when seen, quite clear. My page-related question is, has this been mentioned in the literature anywhere? When I did a quick search there seems to be speculation about an entirely nude portrait of Mona Lisa being found, possibly by da Vinci (is this information on the page?), but nothing about a nude pair. Screen grab and upload anyone? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You should definitely publish that some place, so we can use it in WP. Don't need to also mention all the penises that are easy to see in the background. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Zooming in works well on this painting, like taking a magnifying glass on a visit to the Louvre. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well, nobody has come up with any other recorded sightings. Dicklyon or anyone else mind if I archive this rendition? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

According to a reference on Wikipedia the current value of the Mona Lisa is now for the equivalkent of $830 Million in today dollars (as of January, 2019; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved January 2, 2019.) Reference: Guinness World Records lists da Vinci's Mona Lisa as having the highest ever insurance value for a painting. On permanent display at the Louvre in Paris, the Mona Lisa was assessed at US$100 million on December 14, 1962. Taking inflation into account, the 1962 value would be around US$830 million in 2018.[3]

I just wanted to update the figure to the correct amount, so when I refer to the value, it is not disputed. But the article is locked. Thank you very much. Chris Gordon Brown 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. None of those sentences/phrases are in the article. (searched for "Guinness World Records lists", "highest ever insurance value for a painting", "the Mona Lisa was assessed", etc) Please format your request in a style that editors can understand in order to facilitate your request, and please provide reliable sources. NiciVampireHeart 23:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Supposed 1956 acid attack

I've removed the following text from the "Theft and vandalism" section:

In 1956, part of the painting was damaged when a vandal threw acid at it.

The fact was originally added on 2003-07-25 by User:AxelBoldt in this revision.

Much later, in this 2008 revision by User:Ceoil, a reference was added: a pop-culture-esque BBC article, Faces of the week. Just one problem: that article was published in 2006. No doubt its "source" was the wikipedia article. In a similar vein, Google searches for "mona lisa acid" return a number of hits reciting the same factoid about an acid attack, with no details or sources.

While the painting's vandalism by a rock-throwing Bolivian on 30 December 1956 was front-page news around the world, there are no contemporaneous news reports whatsoever of an acid attack earlier in the year. The French wikipedia article is also unaware of any acid attack.

Flamerule (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good catch, thank you. I don't remember what I was reading at the time. I also can't find any source that's older than 2003. Two recent books about Mona Lisa mention a 1956 acid attack (Mona Lisa: A Life Discovered (2014) and Museum Bodies: The Politics and Practices of Visiting and Viewing (2016)), but clearly we can't trust those. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

As documented by many articles published in international newspapers and magazines (Guardian, Times, Telegraph, the most important Italian newspapers, Focus etc.) and as can be seen in the book "Enigma Leonardo, Decifrazioni e scoperte- La Gioconda: in memoria di Bianca" (Glori-Cappello, Savona 2010//ISBN: 8896552028 and 2011//ISBN: 8896552079), the art researcher and historian Carla Glori has identified the sitter of the Mona Lisa as Bianca Giovanna Sforza (in her research she also identifies the landscape of Bobbio).The identification of the Mona Lisa as Bianca is supported by some articles by Carla Glori published on Academia edu. My request is that you provide to supplement with the name of Bianca Giovanna Sforza the list of the sitters identified as Mona Lisa in Wikipedia. It is sufficient to add the name "Bianca Giovanna Sforza" to the names of the sitters you have listed, as you can see in the following quotation:

"Several other women have been proposed as the subject of the painting.[23] Isabella of Aragon,[24] Cecilia Gallerani,[25] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla,[23] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, Bianca Giovanna Sforza —even Salaì and Leonardo himself— are all among the list of posited models portrayed in the painting.[26][27] The consensus of art historians in the 21st century maintains the long-held traditional opinion that the painting depicts Lisa del Giocondo.[14]

I thank you very much. Boris Sapino (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vague references to multiple media outlets do not help us verify that the stated person should be included here. The reference to the book is also incomplete since there is no page number or other bibliographic information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO YOUR REQUEST, I ADD HERE THE REFERENCES TO THE TWO BOOKS BY CARLA GLORI THAT YOU CAN VERIFY ALSO ON AMAZON. The references to the books are complete and the newspapers are international (also Guardian and Telegraph). The thesis by Glori is well known all over the world and is quoted on Wikipedia of many countries. My request is minimal: It is sufficient 1) to add the name "Bianca Giovanna Sforza" to the names of the sitters you have listed; 2) to add the location of Bobbio after "Montefeltro" quoting these words: The art researcher Carla Glori localized the Mona Lisa's landscape in Bobbio, (in the province of Piacenza), seen from the windows of the town's castle Malaspina Dal Verme ( https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jan/09/mona-lisa-bobbio-da-vinci ) - ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8249386/Mona-Lisa-landscape-location-mystery-solved.html )

I add here the complete references to the Glori's books (Carla Glori is the author, Ugo Cappello contributed as a graphic designer): Enigma Leonardo: decifrazioni e scoperte vol.1 - La Gioconda. In memoria di Bianca di Carla Glori, Ugo Cappello Editore: Cappello Edizioni- Edizione: 30 novembre 2010 EAN: 9788896552025 ISBN-10: 8896552028 ISBN-13: 978-8896552025 Pagine: 402 Formato: brossura

Enigma Leonardo. Decifrazione e scoperte. La ricerca. -La Gioconda. In memoria di Bianca. Ginevra Benci: il cartiglio decifrato. La ricerca in immagini Carla Glori,Ugo Cappello Editore: Cappello Edizioni - Edizione: Jan. 1 201I EAN: 9788896552070 ISBN-10: 8896552079 ISBN-13: 978-8896552070 Pagine: 454 p., Formato: Brossura

You can see also the following articles published on Academia edu by Carla Glori: https://independent.academia.edu/CarlaGlori 1)DUE SAGGI SULLA GIOCONDA DI LEONARDO 2)Il ritratto della Signora Milanese in Blois e la Gioconda.pdf 3)La Gioconda: La localizzazione del paesaggio, La moda milanese dei vinci, Il parallelo con la Belle Ferronnière. 45 SCHEDE ILLUSTRATE L'arte vuol sempre irrealtà visibili

I quote some articles you can check

• NB: This is the same girl as claimed to be the subject of Leonardo's La Bella Principessa, who died at the age of 15. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added other newspapers. The identification of la bella principessa and the attribution to Leonardo is disputed by many scholars as you can read in: http://artwatch.org.uk/problems-with-la-bella-principessa-part-iii-dr-pisarek-responds-to-prof-kemp/ http://artwatch.org.uk/problems-with-la-bella-principessa-part-ii-authentication-crisis/ and many many other articles of important scholars all over the world. You certainly know that a forger declared that la bella principessa was made by him and nobody did a trial in court. Therefore the argument against the Glori's research is inadmissible. The problem is that you censor the research that is free and this is a very serious thing especially for google and must be denounced Boris Sapino

 Done. Have added name with The Guardian as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. have hatted your large list of articles, to save space, if that's ok, thanks

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

I think what I am about to do is vandalism or something. I would like someone. to explain things and rules about Wikipedia so please can someone teach me. Nanometer545 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Mona Lisa. Please check your talk page for a list of helpful links. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Make sure that Michael Bednarek doesn't delete the pronunciations as on "Rigoletto", "La traviata" or "Il trovatore"... --92.184.96.116 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's bring up Feminism

We should inject Feminism into this article and quote a few Sociology or Gender Studies professors as modern views. This will bring this article inline with many other articles on Wikipedia that do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.121.88 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is desirable why? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:3198:34CD:FE5F:5731 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

should the name of the Bolivian man who through a stone at the work be included?

should the name of the Bolivian man who through a stone at the work be included?

it's like terrorists getting airtime for their actions?

like his actions or not you get to hear about it

is it appropriate? because as it stands he has his name linked to the artwork and has sort of tagged himself to it

should his name be removed? Thetiesthatbind (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Too much emphasis on the trivial. Amandajm (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, actually. At first I thought, "Why would a Bolivian man travel all the way to France to throw a stone at the Mona Lisa?" But then I realized - it was painted around the same time that Europe began to colonize Bolivia -- a truly shameful affair that deserves a lot more room in the history books, as well as the wiki. What do we know about Ugo Ungaza Villegas? Apart from what is recorded in Vandalism of art?

In the meantime, we should certainly mention him by name. Its removal on a prior occasion was itself an act of vandalism. I have restored it.

Meanwhile, I could find no mention of the painting having since been restored - so I have also removed the statement that it was restored, until someone can provide a citation (the citation given made no mention of any restoration). In fact, a better citation is needed for the original incident in question. I'm going to see what I can dig up from the peer reviewed literature. Fb2ts (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It is part of the history of the painting - as Hectostratus is part of the history of the Temple of Diana at Ephesias. Include it.

Anyone who came all the way from Bolivia would likely be a Spaniard - the natives would not know enough about Italy, or be able to get there. And no contemporary would likely share your idiosyncratic views on the coming of modern civilisation to the Americas. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:3198:34CD:FE5F:5731 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Kittycorns (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

mona lisa had to sit while he painted her.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What the Painting Originally Looked Like

Digital restoration

Unretouched image of what's hanging in Paris

Retouched image presently atop this article

I think we ought to show a digitally restored version. This closely resembles digital restorations that have been published by reliable art historians.[4][5] I note that the picture atop this article has already been “retouched.” Maybe show this picture I’m suggesting side-by-side at the top of this article next to an unretouched version? Or show this pic at the top, and the unretouched version later in this article? Whatever we do, I think the digital restoration belongs somewhere in this article, at least. FWIW, the editor who apparently is responsible for the image presently atop this article has been banned: "Consistent with the Terms of Use, Dcoetzee has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites". (I am not sure whether that is a reason to remove the image from this article, or a reason to keep it!) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The digital version you included seems to be washed out, with the eyes artificially darkened. Not as faithful as the version in the first URL you linked (which is also not quite the high-contrast chiaroscuro Leonardo worked in). We might need better journalistic coverage of what deems a digital 'restoration' accurate before we include such an image. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The restored image I linked to is by Paul Cotte, and I think it's very highly regarded, and here's a testimonial to it (from Martin Kemp (art historian), an expert on Leonardo and emeritus professor of the history of art at University of Oxford). And if it's the state of the art (as I believe it is), then we probably ought to use the image that's closest to it. I also sent Monsiuer Cotte a request to donate his exact image, but did not hear back positively. I guess we might also need better journalistic coverage of what deems a digital "retouched" accurate before we keep such an image? Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

After spending millions, I’m not very impressed with the Cotte version, and I’m sure it would be rejected by Leonardo. As UpdateNerd pointed out, the eyes are just plain wrong, unless she has jaundice. Also as UpdateNerd said, it “seems to be washed out” – not really, but definitely poor distribution of tone. And there’s a strange and inappropriate veil of red color over the whole image. Just goes to show that science, with all its instruments and measurements, doesn’t do a very good job. Just looking at it, it doesn’t look realistic, which is what Da Vinci was all about. The closer to what his eyes saw, the better the depiction. IMHO this fails. So even though others have commented positively about this rendering, I can’t think they were being objective. Like I said, spending millions can bend most peoples minds. Maybe the versions I’ve seen aren’t accurate. If he agrees to let you use his original I’ll be curious to see if it’s any better. ---- Just to be clear, I’m responsible for the “Remastered color”, version on the left - and while I’m sure someone else could/might produce a more realistic version, so far I haven’t come across one – and I’ve really looked! And I continue to tweak it, as you may have noticed. Since the colors (skin, sky, water, earth, etc.) of the original scene are quite common, producing a realistic rendering seems possible. Of course there is variability in each object so for me it comes down to creating pleasing compromises that coalesce into a believable whole. If you decide to add a “restored” to the main article please keep these ideas in mind. ---- But this brings up a more basic question about remastered artwork. Would your idea of including a “restored” version on the main article page include other works of art? Or is The Mona Lisa a special case? There are many that also fall into this category (artwork that has deteriorated to the point it obviously no longer looks like what the artist intended.) Thanks for your efforts, and take care - Pixel8tor (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Monsieur Cotte did not want to donate the image at this time. User:Pixel8tor, your colorized image may be worth including lower down in this article, just as an example of the sort of restoration that you, Cotte, and others have attempted. What do you think about that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Too bad Cotte wasn’t willing, but I’m not surprised, he’s very possessive. As for me, I just want everyone to appreciate the true genius of the artists, which is obscured by all the degradation that’s happened. If you decide to include my version, can we agree on terminology? “Restoring” is work done on a damaged original artifact to bring it closer to its original condition. “Colorization” is applying color to artifacts that were originally monochrome. “Color remastering”, which is what I do, takes the colors that exists in the original artifact and adjusts them to match known everyday objects. Think of it like music remastering. The original recording is adjusted, remastered, to enhance subtleties and suppress errors. I’ve referred to the works that I’ve done as “remastered color” since I don’t address other types of damage, like cracks, chips, etc.. And I’d characterize Cotte’s work as “scientific deconstruction and reassembly”. Does that make sense? Is “attempted” the right word? They’re fait accompli! And finally, if you decide you want to use it, go ahead, no problem here.Pixel8tor (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, when I get a chance I’ll try to write up some text and give it a try. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant, I'm curious why you created this page(Mona Lisa Digitally Restored.tif)? It's not the most recent version and the upload implies it's yours. That's a wrong impression. Please remove this page. Thanks. Pixel8tor (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t imply it’s mine. The image page is clearly marked with a notice saying the image was “extracted” from another existing image. But the extracted image is not being used, so I went ahead and requested deletion as you have asked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Modified Image

The 1914 image under "History" with a number of gentlemen standing around the Mona Lisa appears to have been edited from the original state - a person has been replaced.

Note what appears to be the original image:(linked to in the image's media view) https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/people-gather-around-the-mona-lisa-painting-on-january-4-news-photo/80912841

Compared to the image in this article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:After_photo_for_the_return_of_Gioconda_at_the_Louvre_Museum_1914.jpg.

Somebody has replaced the person 2nd from right. Note the difference in image quality.

Would it be worth removing this image from the article?

RaynorElgie (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh, wow, this is beyond bizarre. The Guardian also has a different person. I've looked at other uploads and it seems that the user in question has been doing this to multiple photos... I'll talk to an admin on commons. Aza24 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An example: [6] vs [7] Aza24 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@RaynorElgie:, see this thread Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)