Talk:Isleworth Mona Lisa

La Gioconda

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)

NPOV

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)

I know nothing about the subject, so I preserved the content of the article while attempting to word it such that it is POV. I'm going to be bold and remove the NPOV tag. Kanmalachoa 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pultizer's Book

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)

"Earlier" version

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

Unsupported speculation/interpretation

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)

Original research?

The painting is claimed by a majority of experts to be mostly an original work of Leonardo dating from the early 16th century.

References

This appears to be original research, ‎Genevieve81. The ref note says A survey of all published opinions shows that 22 experts are certain that the major parts of the Isleworth Mona Lisa are the work of Leonardo da Vinci... Even the Mona Lisa Foundation doesn't claim such figures. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hillbillyholiday, 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)

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)

Unacceptable Article

Wow. I don't know if I've ever seen such a misleading article on Wikipedia. (I added some notices at the top of the article) This article is filled with original research (See the post above) and the main contributor (‎Genevieve81) has almost solely edited on this topic, signifying a very possible conflict of interest. I will by removing lots from this article over the next few days, especially the OR. This article is improperly sourced by various non-reliable sources a lot of which are based on the opinions of experts from the early 20th century. I have books next to me by the leading Leonardo scholars today (Kemp, Zollner, Bambach, Syson and Marani) that all leave this painting out of their list of paintings by Leonardo. This is not something to casually ignore, these are leading museum curators and professors are the world and they didn't just forget to put this painting in their list. They purposely left it out.

The main issue with this article is it is centered around the idea that the majority of expert authenticate this painting as by Leonardo. (Once again see the post above) I can not stress this enough that that is not true. In order to say something like that for a painting this controversial, the source that is cited must say almost word for word "the majority of expert authenticate this painting to be by Leonardo," none of this sources do. (Evidenced by the fact that rather than citing one source that says that, 7–8 sources are cited in an effort to imply this) In fact, Britannica for instance literally says this:

"Other copies of the Mona Lisa include the so-called Isleworth Mona Lisa, which some commentators asserted was Leonardo’s first version of the famed portrait. The claim was a controversial one, with several leading Leonardo scholars flatly denying it."

And Isaacson says

"Even as Leonardo was perfecting the Mona Lisa, his followers and some of his students were making copies, perhaps with an occasional helping hand from the master. Some are very good, including those known as the Venon Mona Lisa and the Isleworth Mona Lisa, prompting claims that they may have been painted wholly or mostly by Leonardo, though most academic experts are skeptical.

I could go on and on about how a lot of this article cites the Mona Lisa Foundation (which was formed with the sole intent of proving this painting's authenticity... a clear bias which will be addressed – and has been questioned by various media organizations) but I will stop here and begin editing over the next few days.

Aza24 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about this, and I even I can see how apparent the bias in this article is. Please do this page justice. You have my all my support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishsingh00724 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Some corrections/comments related to the post on the Talk Page by Aza24 above:

• The original research flagged by Hillbillyholiday was removed.
• The opinions of experts of the early 20th century are presented as such, besides, no reason is provided by Aza24 as to why these or any other sources would be unreliable.
• The fact that some experts may have left the painting out of their publications cannot in and of itself imply that the author does or does not attribute it to Leonardo. Writing that it does amounts to second guessing their opinion based on nothing. The omission of a work may also imply that the author does not have an opinion, has not caught up with the current state of affairs or that a publication is out of date.
• Nowhere in the article does it say that "the majority of expert (sic) authenticate this painting to be by Leonardo,". Aza24 states “that that is not true”; this is clearly original research. Most of the remainder of Aza24’s argument on this point seems difficult understand .
• Concerning the Isaacson and Britannica quotes, these seem to be comments made in passing and obviously emanate from sources which have not studied the question of the attribution in any real depth. Moreover, Isaacson himself states very clearly in his book that much of his material comes from Martin Kemp, which clearly brings into question the neutrality and reliability of the source. This brings up the very important criteria of neutrality, reliability and verifiability, cornerstones of any admissibility in Wikipedia, and the relative weight to be given to sources.

In the user’s most recent interventions Aza24 has edited the page in the following way:

• The article previously highlighted the results of two independent, academic peer-reviewed publications on the painting, both of which seem to unequivocally attribute it to Leonardo, and both of which are freely accessible online. Aza24 replaced this with an unsourced, unreferenced and unilateral attribution of the painting to the “Workshop of Leonardo”. This will be reverted.
• The infobox has been modified in the same way. This will be reverted.
• In the Description section, and in the legend of the Louvre Mona Lisa, Aza24 has modified the text to state that the painting is “widely believed to be a copy” of the Louvre painting, providing no references. This is OR and will be reverted.
• The Sources section has been modified to include a few books and articles, some of which, based on Aza24’s own admission make little or no reference to the painting. This will be reverted.
• Aza24 has flagged that the page contained original research and factual inaccuracies. As can be seen from the modifications above, the user has failed to highlight these and, in fact, seems to have added original research and factual inaccuracies. This will be reverted.

Aside from the substantive issues raised above, it would seem that there are more fundamental ones that should perhaps be brought to light:

• A brief look at Aza24’s user page seems to highlight that the user has conducted much OR (biased?) as to the status of the attribution of some paintings by Leonardo. In other words, it seems that the user has a strong opinion on this issue generally and more specifically, it seems, as it relates to the Isleworth Mona Lisa, discounting any idea that the user may modify this page with the required neutrality.
• Further to this point, Aza24’s post on the talk page, referring to an “unacceptable article” in a rather emotional way and using a tendentious tone, suggests an underlying agenda. It seems that this user only started posting actively once another user, Kym staiff, saw his posts on this page repeatedly reverted for a lack of NPOV and using a tendentious tone. In the past, Kym staiff appears to also have tried to impose the idea of a workshop attribution to the painting. Kym staiff appears to be related in some way to the claim referred to in the article . In view of this it would seem likely that Aza24 and Kym staiff are at least related, bringing the neutrality of any post by either on the Isleworth painting into doubt.
• Perhaps most importantly, Aza24 seems to imply that the page as it stood had been manipulated, when in fact it has been reviewed and edited on numerous occasions by highly active Wikipedia users over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevieve81 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Genevieve81, I am in the middle of reconstructing this page and I would appreciate not reverting my edits again. As a single topic editor, you yourself are very suspicious to have ties to an organization that would benefit from the authentication of this painting, the Mona Lisa foundation comes to mind. Since you brought up many comments I will address each of them:

Response to comments from Genevieve81

The original research flagged by Hillbillyholiday was removed. Thank you. The opinions of experts of the early 20th century are presented as such, besides, no reason is provided by Aza24 as to why these or any other sources would be unreliable. The opinions of experts from the 20th century are unreliable. Hundreds of books and articles have been written since then and they will be properly sourced throughout. While I recognize older opinions are important, they will be included in a history, or history of attribution section. You are using sources that have a serious a COI. John R. Eyre, whose 100 year old book you cite many times, was the stepfather of the owner of the painting. He would obviously benifit from its authentication, especially considering that a recently accepted Leonardo painting, Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), sold for 450 million dollars. Henry Pulitzer is equally as unreliable, as he also owned the painting at the time of his publications. The fact that some experts may have left the painting out of their publications cannot in and of itself imply that the author does or does not attribute it to Leonardo. Writing that it does amounts to second guessing their opinion based on nothing. The omission of a work may also imply that the author does not have an opinion, has not caught up with the current state of affairs or that a publication is out of date. Actually it does imply this. Most of these sources have sections specifically listed as "Checklist of Leonardo paintings," or "Complete list of Leonardo paintings." These lists often include paintings whose attributions are uncertain, such as Madonna Litta. The Isleworth Mona Lisa is missing from all of them, since the attribution is not uncertain, because no reliable and serious majority of art historians authenticate it. These authors did not just simply "forget" mention the work. They have studied Leonardo for their entire lives and wrote about all of the paintings as to which they attribute to him. (Lets not forget that Leonardo's oeuvre is less than 25 paintings – at the absolute most – making it even more unlikely for an author to simply "forget" the work. Nowhere in the article does it say that "the majority of expert (sic) authenticate this painting to be by Leonardo,". Aza24 states “that that is not true”; this is clearly original research. Most of the remainder of Aza24’s argument on this point seems difficult understand . You are correct, it did not state that. However it did state, word for word, that "The authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa is disputed by a minority of experts" with not a single reference provided. The claim that this argument is "difficult to understand" makes sense since you seemingly have some kind of personal attachment to this painting that prevents the opinions of leading scholars to be correctly represented here. Concerning the Isaacson and Britannica quotes, these seem to be comments made in passing and obviously emanate from sources which have not studied the question of the attribution in any real depth. Moreover, Isaacson himself states very clearly in his book that much of his material comes from Martin Kemp, which clearly brings into question the neutrality and reliability of the source. This brings up the very important criteria of neutrality, reliability and verifiability, cornerstones of any admissibility in Wikipedia, and the relative weight to be given to sources. Alright, point taken, I will add more sources then. It's difficult to understand how you could cite "neutrality, reliability and verifiability" when you yourself are taking a personal stance against modern leading academic scholars and using 100 year old sources that had clear connections to the work. Britannica is a reputable encyclopedia and states that "several leading Leonardo scholars flatly denying it" as a non-biased source that is examining the scholarly consensus. In the user’s most recent interventions Aza24 has edited the page in the following way: The article previously highlighted the results of two independent, academic peer-reviewed publications on the painting, both of which seem to unequivocally attribute it to Leonardo, and both of which are freely accessible online. Aza24 replaced this with an unsourced, unreferenced and unilateral attribution of the painting to the “Workshop of Leonardo”. This will be reverted. Unfortunately, art authentication it not this simple. Scientific examination has never proved to be consistently reliable or widely accepted for art authorship, otherwise there would be no controversy in most attributions. Paintings are authenticated by the consensus of art historians, not scientific examination. A page number is not cited in the articles and the information is not fully explained. The infobox has been modified in the same way. This will be reverted. These changes are intentional and have been reverted back. In the Description section, and in the legend of the Louvre Mona Lisa, Aza24 has modified the text to state that the painting is “widely believed to be a copy” of the Louvre painting, providing no references. This is OR and will be reverted. References will be added, this page is ongoing major restriction at the moment. The Sources section has been modified to include a few books and articles, some of which, based on Aza24’s own admission make little or no reference to the painting. This will be reverted. All of these sources have been returned and will all be cited, this page is ongoing major restriction at the moment. Aza24 has flagged that the page contained original research and factual inaccuracies. As can be seen from the modifications above, the user has failed to highlight these and, in fact, seems to have added original research and factual inaccuracies. This will be reverted. I have highlighted the issue here and in my earlier comment. Removing these is too bold for a painting of such controversy, they have been returned. Aside from the substantive issues raised above, it would seem that there are more fundamental ones that should perhaps be brought to light: No matter how cleverly constructed, the below is mainly personal attacks and is not appreciated. A brief look at Aza24’s user page seems to highlight that the user has conducted much OR (biased?) as to the status of the attribution of some paintings by Leonardo. In other words, it seems that the user has a strong opinion on this issue generally and more specifically, it seems, as it relates to the Isleworth Mona Lisa, discounting any idea that the user may modify this page with the required neutrality. A brief look at my user page reveals that I am interested and well versed in Leonardo's works? I don't have some "bias" I have 10 books from the last 20 years, by a variety of authors that do not authenticate the work. Further to this point, Aza24’s post on the talk page, referring to an “unacceptable article” in a rather emotional way and using a tendentious tone, suggests an underlying agenda. It seems that this user only started posting actively once another user, Kym staiff, saw his posts on this page repeatedly reverted for a lack of NPOV and using a tendentious tone. In the past, Kym staiff appears to also have tried to impose the idea of a workshop attribution to the painting. Kym staiff appears to be related in some way to the claim referred to in the article . In view of this it would seem likely that Aza24 and Kym staiff are at least related, bringing the neutrality of any post by either on the Isleworth painting into doubt. "a rather emotional way and using a tendentious tone, suggests an underlying agenda." What? Perhaps a single topic editor on a controversial painting citing unreliable 100 year old sources suggests an underlying agenda? How could one not call an article that is full of original research and mis information an “unacceptable article”? Perhaps most importantly, Aza24 seems to imply that the page as it stood had been manipulated, when in fact it has been reviewed and edited on numerous occasions by highly active Wikipedia users over the years. This is simply not true. A quick look at the page statistics makes it clear that you have added 4,340 of the 7,381 words, perhaps of more like 5000 words when you take out my recent changes.

The balance of information in this article is completely biased. Leading scholars are given 1–2 lines and many are left out. The use of some main sources being 100 year old by people who had connections to the painting and would have benefited from its authentication is also unacceptable. The work has never been exhibited in a Leonardo exhibition. Checklists by Zollner, Marani, Bambach, Kemp, Pedretti and Syson leave the painting out. These are "checklists" and their point is to list every painting they attribute to Leonardo. (And in the case of Zollner, summarize the scholarly consensus) I strongly recommend that you cease editing this article, as a serious chance of a conflict of interest is present. (Something which conveniently failed to address in your earlier comment) Since you do not seem to recognize the OR I will provide specific examples:

Authenticity

During the first part of the 20th century, a number of experts supported the attribution of the most significant sections of the Isleworth Mona Lisa to Leonardo da Vinci: Hugh Blaker,[3] Paul Konody,[2] John Eyre,[3] Commendatore Cecconi,[3] Dr. Arduino Colasanti,[3] Ludovico Spiridon,[3] Enrico San Martino di Valperga,[3] Adolfo Venturi,[3] A.C. Chappelow,[10] and Henry Pulitzer.[4]

• The source provided is a book by one of the so called "experts" (John Eyre) who would have profited from the authentication of the painting, since his step son owned the painting in question. The citing of the same book for every expert may even imply that the intention was to overwhelm with citation so the reader would not question their reliability. Henry Pulitzer owned the painting at some point as well. No 20th century expert is mention who does not authenticate the painting, although many undoubtedly exist.

The authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa is disputed by a minority of experts. Skeptics argue that as Henry F. Pulitzer himself owned the painting in question, a conflict of interest is present. His Where is the Mona Lisa? was published by the Pulitzer Press, his own publishing house. Pulitzer notes in the book's introduction that he made a number of sacrifices in order to acquire the painting, including the selling of "a house with all its contents".[11]

• A single ref is provided for this section and seemingly none for the controversial line "The authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa is disputed by a minority of experts.": In fact, this information makes a COI even more possible since Pulitzer selling his house and many possessions would like have made him in financial need, something that authenticating this painting would easily settle.

Pulitzer argues in his book that Leonardo's contemporary Raphael made a sketch of this painting, probably from memory, after seeing it in Leonardo's studio in 1504 (the sketch is reproduced in Pulitzer's book; the book says that this sketch is at the Louvre). The Raphael sketch includes the two Greek columns that are not found in the Louvre's Mona Lisa, but are found in the painting bought by Blaker. Pulitzer presents a few pages of art expert testimonials in his book; some of these experts seemed to believe that Leonardo was the painter, others felt the artist was somebody who worked in Leonardo's studio, and still others suggested that other artists may have done it. Supporters of the authenticity of the Isleworth Mona Lisa include art collector John Eyre, who argued that the bust, face, and hands are autographed.[12]

• No refs are provided for most of the information present. Raphael has many notable copies of the Mona Lisa and the sketches could just as easily be studies for them.

Pulitzer also presents laboratory evidence (light to dark ratios across the canvas, X-rays, etc.) that his painting is a Leonardo. However, specific detail on the manner in which these studies were carried out, and by whom, is not provided. He writes: "I have no intention of cluttering up this book with too many technicalities and wish to make this chapter brief". No independent reports on the painting are cited in his text; he uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the team that conducted the research. As his own Pulitzer Press then published these results, there is a lack of outside corroboration for his claims. A documentary aired by PBS[13] gives the names of the persons doing the scientific studies.[14]

• No refs are provided for any information except the last sentence, all seemingly OR. Most of the unreliable sources pose hesitation for the attribution, many, like Eyre propose a partial attribution as well.

Honestly, I could go on and on about the OR, COI sources and lack of citations but I will cease here and continue editing the article. Aza24 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article should be tagged for now, although there is a lot better balance, and a wider survey of relevant sources in the last few days. I had been concerned by the 2nd lead sentence "In 2015 and 2016, peer-reviewed academic publications concerning it confirmed its attribution to Leonardo da Vinci.[1][2]", which at the time was one of two sentences in the opening para (that matters to google), as it clearly was less than half (being generous) of the story. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Also wouldn't like to see sources dated 1915, 1923 or 1960 used to present views on the attribution debate, as in earlier versions of the page; they should only be used for 'history' or 'provenance' sections. Research tends to be cumulative, and also methodology and technique has advanced significantly since those periods. In addition, having audited the page history, the claim "that the page had been vetted by "highly active Wikipedians" is at odds with reality. There were core once off editors, and bunch of copy-editors who seemed focused on the prose/formatting, rather than the veracity of the content. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading further into older versions of the page; in future can we avoid phrases like "confirmed"; art historians don't talk like that. They use language like "I believe" or "in my opinion", or at least the better ones do. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrator here. From an editorial point of view, in looking over the article, I find it to have a jarring internal inconsistency. There are sources cited in the body of the article that appear to conflict with characterizations made in the lede. We can not say in Wikipedia's voice to whom this painting is or is not attributable, and it really doesn't seem like the experts can say so either in any definitive sense, so the most appropriate presentation of this issue is that it is alive controversy, and probably an unsolvable one. From an administrative point of view, I find the edit history concerning, as there has clearly been an attempt by a conflicted editor to shape the article towards one extreme. Of course, in terms of real-world effects, the content of a Wikipedia article has a negligible impact on the article itself, but there are potential motivations identifiable for pressing either point of view. BD2412 T 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) It isn't really a live controversy - the idea that Leonardo himself did significant painting here is pretty much WP:FRINGE. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, the reason why it is couched as such can been seen in the "discussions" above, which represents an attempt to meet those editors with a financial interests half ways. I agree with Johnbod that we should not represent fringe punts and that the article should better reflect the consensus of art historians views. Note that the article has been pretty much re-written from top to bottom with this in mind in the last month, but is a work in progress. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ps re "experts say"...outside of those from 100 years ago or without invested interests; they do say so as Johnbod; quite emphatically. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the sort of thousand-foot view, I see references in the authenticity section to several recent evaluations asserting that it is at least in part Da Vinci's work. I see nothing in the article from which I can tell that one set of evaluations is more "fringe" than another, nor that there is really any way for the contesting experts themselves to say. If we were talking about a painting for which experts were saying that this was actually painted in the eighteenth century in a London studio, and was fraudulently aged in an oven or otherwise a forgery, that would be a different argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the experts agree that this is from the right time and place, and the disagreement is over whether who in the studio did the work. As for financial interests, I have long held that is misplaced to imagine that Wikipedia "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", will influence those one way or the other, but financial interests run both ways. Those who would profit off of one set of circumstances are generally countered by those who profit off of the opposing set of circumstances. BD2412 T 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What you are angling towards is 'workshop', which is a very different to "authenticated". If you don't mind me asking, why does this need random admin wadding in? It disappoints me that you are taking guidance from the article that stands, rather than the sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am "wadding in" because I have fifteen years of experience as a Wikipedia administrator, and immediately found the presentation of information in this article to be internally inconsistent. Looking at the edit history to determine how this came about, I found some issues that suggest that the article had previously been written too far in one direction, leading to some some back-and-forth WP:SPA editing, and that this was being countered by writing it too far in another direction, which happens to be the direction that the SPA was pushing. I recognize that this doesn't make the SPA necessarily wrong, but it is an odd series of events, to say the least. BD2412 T 22:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are wading in, declaring I'm an admin here, and as I said "you are taking guidance from the article that stands, rather than the sources". 15 years experience or not - "doesn't make the SPA necessarily wrong"; give me a break. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: Like John and Ceoil have said "Experts remain divided" is not really an appropriate way to phrase the 2nd sentence of the article. Experts do not remain divided, there is quite literally no major modern Leonardo scholar that has supported the attribution as Kemp says in the 2nd ref. ("The role-call of significant contemporary Leonardo specialists who openly and unequivocally supported the attribution in public was precisely zero") Take this for instance, when Salvator Mundi was presented before Leonardo experts, the National Gallery flew in some of the best in the world: Kemp, Bambach, Marani and Syson. They formed different opinions of Salvator Mundi, but not a single one of them supports the Isleworth. Likewise, Pedretti, Zollner and Vezzosi have also refused to support the Isleworth. The only modern supporters of the attribution are the Mona Lisa foundation which was formed to authenticate the painting (a clear COI), some (but not all) scientists (who do not have the same authority as art historians for art authentication) and some art historians that have either worked with or been paid by the Mona Lisa. (More COI - especially considering these art historians not being particularly notable) By saying "Experts remain divided" we are giving huge weight to an unreliable minority of people. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there sources for the art historians favoring that view being paid for it? The lede, as I found it, says "Historical, stylistic and scientific evidence continues to remain divisive". Frankly, the article seems heavier on presenting who thought what than on presenting what details those examiners cited in drawing their conclusions, which would probably be of more benefit to the reader coming across this out of a general interest in Da Vinci. BD2412 T 22:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: Frankly, it blows my mind that this conversation is even being had, but I will assume you have good faith in this BD2412. I admit I may have overstepped with the payment part, Hales pp 253–254 does say this though: Over the course of several years, at a cost of an estimated $1 million international experts evaluated the Mona Lisa's "younger sitter" with techniques..." I suppose that does not prove the payment part, but then again I did not put that any where in the article in the first place. Hales also says on 254 that "Although the Earlier version may be a copy – and the skeptics out-number the believers, certainly in scholarly circles..." I'd like to point your attention to what Ceoil said above about how you are evaluating the authenticity on the state of the article, not on the sources – I don't know what you want me to say. Sorry that I haven't finished completely redoing this article? Sorry that it's a work in progress? Saying "Experts remain divided" is simply not true. Another example: if you look at refs 4 and 5, they are citing lists of works by Leonardo, usually numbering less than 20–30. Marani (2003) says his list includes paintings "in which it is possible to identify Leonardo's hand" and Zollner (2019) says that his list includes widely attributed paintings "together with more contentious attributions, insofar as these are rationally justified." Both catalogues include extremely controversial works like Madonna Litta, Bacchus and Salvator Mundi yet neither of them even mention the Isleworth. These experts wouldn't just forget to include a painting, especially when the list is so small in the first place, they consciously left it out because they recognize that it is not even a divisive issue in the scholarly world. I recognize that you are an experienced editor and have good intentions here, so please take a closer look at the overwhelming evidence I have presented and understand that of course I am trying to "write this article so far in the other direction"... because that's the reality of its authenticity, there are no leading scholars actively campaigning for the work. Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It might be better to ignore BD2412 from this point. This is a content dispute, we don't need clueless, legacy, "I'm an Admin" big boots as of yet. Their comment "The lede, as I found it..." tells me all I need to know. As a reminder, wiki is not a reliable source. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I'm not claiming to be a Da Vinci expert, I'm a Wikipedian with slightly more seasoning than the average editor (or admin, even), but still typical of the reader who is going to find this article while taking the garden path through the encyclopedia. In fact, last night my wife and I were watching an episode of the documentary series, Breakthrough: The Ideas That Changed the World (which I would highly recommend). The episode was on the history of flight, which for obvious reasons had an extensive segment on Leonardo Da Vinci, so I was pointing out to my wife that Da Vinci also dissected bodies and painted the Mona Lisa. This is probably the sort of route that will take most readers to this article. Therefore, articles have to be written so that their narrative flow hangs together, and they don't seem to be saying one thing in one place and something else in another place. It appears to me, at least, that this article presents something like the Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which I do know something about. It is saying that there is some evidence that has been presented by experts on both sides of a contentious question of who produced a given work, and is leaning somewhat heavily on some rather conservative hedging (there are a lot of things that can't be said "unequivocally" but that leaves a wide range for degrees of confidence). What I would suggest is that rather than going back and forth about it, we create a subpage or a userspace page where all the claims made by all the experts, what characteristics of the painting are given weight by those who think it was Da Vinci's work, and and what characteristics of the painting are given weight by those who think that it is not. The focus of the article can then be brought more fully on the qualities of the painting itself.

@Ceoil: That comment puts you right on the edge of incivility. If you are unable to maintain civility while discussing this topic, then you should not be involved in this area of editing at all. ' 'BD2412 T 00:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Its not about civility, its about use of sources. Have now gutted the lead per reliable sources, which was a wip anyway Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because they broke about a dozen references, and I have properly moved the content down. You are missing the point, which is that the article has been made increasingly internally inconsistent, and needs to be made consistent and present not just what this person or that person thought, but why they thought that, to be useful to readers. I would advise you to take a less destructive course in the future. BD2412 T 00:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit heavy haaded given we said the page was a work in progress, and you introduced yourself with "I am an admin, I know nothing about this topic". Are you confident your actions will stand up to scrutiny? Especially as you inexplicably said that we should give equal voice to SPA's, and are now edit warring on that basis. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have repeatedly broken numerous reference templates added by other editors. You are welcome to edit judiciously, but if you just blank sections you dislike without taking any care to maintain references, then you are being destructive. I am fairly sure that repairing that damage and requiring things to be done without breaking templates will stand up to scrutiny. You are also rather seriously misreading what I have said. I would suggest that you correct this. BD2412 T 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could present a counter argument for retaining the lead as was, counter weighing the validity my removal of old or biased sources (see the realms above), with though put into WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:VER. As it stands, I think all this shout be hatted, as a silly distraction. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Every time you remove the section, you leave the references section looking like this:

Now, to be clear, I didn't write the content that you seem intent on deleting (I gather that it has been written by numerous contributors, including Aza24); however, I did move it to a separate section of the article, so it is no longer in the lede at all. If you are intent on removing it, do so without making a mess. At this point, I would suggest that you gain consensus for removing it, since your edits appear to be sweeping in far more content than what your comments indicate you intend to remove. BD2412 T 01:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Better the refs are a mess than the article is inaccurate. We can fix that stuff, its not a good basis for your last revert. ps, unwatching as you are obv baiting and so obv looking to make a block and not to be reasoned with. This...you messed up poor quality references is the last straw. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I too am familiar with the Shakespeare authorship question but fail to draw the same comparisons. That topic and its associated articles, make it clear that the vast majority of experts do not support any alternate theory of Shakespeare's identity, which was likewise the purpose of the lead in this article. I understand that you are asking for more explanation from both sides, (the "why") which will be put in, but this page is a work in progress and I ask for your patience in that. I assumed the "under construction" at the top of the page would make this clear, but it has seemingly not. I concur with Ceoil that entering the conversation by immediately saying "Administrator here" was an odd thing to do. In doing so you made it seem like, purposefully or not, you were entering the conversation with an authority that we should all listen to – made more confusing by you stating that you are not particularly well versed in Leonardo. By coming with a supposed place of authority and changing a major part of an article that is under construction you shouldn't be surprised if people are frustrated and on the, as you say, "edge of incivility." I think that you are taking this conversation to be my word vs a neutral view. This is simply not the case. If any art historian saw this conversation that would probably just laugh since no major Leonardo exhibition has included this work, no major historian and no major catalog or list of paintings. Aza24 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, two side notes: with exception to some contributions to palaeontology, Leonardo had little to no impact on aviation or really any science, due to his ideas and notebooks not being published for centuries. (Still interesting nonetheless, so thank you for sharing that series) Secondly, try your best to refer to him as "Leonardo" not "da Vinci" unless you are willing to refer to Joan of Arc as "of arc"! Aza24 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that some of the content that Ceoil deleted with his paragraph removal was content that you added? Particularly the rather extensive footnote descriptions from Isaacson, Marani, and Kemp? I made some rather small modifications to the lede because the lede is supposed to reflect the contents of the article, not appear at odds with it. The fact that these were incongruous led me to research the edit history of the article, which at one point presented completely the opposite view, that authorship by Leonardo was "confirmed"; obviously this is an incorrect position, but neither is it apparent that there is a near-universal certainty in the other direction, with only people who have been paid off or lack competence saying otherwise. It is also problematic from an administrative standpoint that the initial efforts to "correct" the article were by an SPA who immediately pushed it in the extreme opposite direction, and it is reasonable to look more deeply into the progression of the article from that point.

It is also concerning that there appears to be some circular reasoning to the effect that "serious art historians believe X", and the category of "serious art historians" is then circumscribed by their belief in "X". A cursory evaluation suggests, for example, that the Alfonso Rubino referenced in the article appears to have written several books on the geometry of art, that Jean Pierre Isbouts has written extensively about Leonardo beyond this specific painting, and that various others cited as taking the authorship position have various scholarly credentials. This is not at all to suggest that their experience is equal to that of other experts, or that they should be presented as such, but the readers would be better served if it was explained who are the people taking each position, what is their relative expertise, and most importantly why they evaluate the painting as they do. Currently, the only content in the article appearing to offer an explanation of why anyone has rejected the claim is one line in the lede citing "use of convolutional neural networks". The article gives no sense of how valid such an evaluation might be. Again, I think that this would be best accomplished by laying out all these details on a separate subpage and figuring out from there how to incorporate them most informatively into the article. Why not try going that route and see where we get with it. BD2412 T 02:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To your first question: no, you are mistaken. To your later question, no we do not evaluate WP:FRINGE theories, esp not for those with obv financial interest.. how in the hell are you an admin! You don't seem to grasp even the basics of core policy...Your contribs here are baffling! and this incompetence is edging towards recall territory. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I deal with tax protesters and anti-vaccination activists on a fairly regular basis, and they are always quick to point out the "obvious financial interests" of those who claim that taxation is constitutional, and that vaccines are safe and effective. The cure for financial interests swaying the claims that people are willing to make is to point out in the article where claimants specifically have such interests. As for whether this is a WP:FRINGE theory, it was given serious treatment by Reuters. Of course, this is not dispositive, as mainstream media outlets can be fooled, but this certainly isn't "flat Earth" level of implausibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that everyone agrees that this painting was likely painted in Leonardo's studio, during Leonardo's lifetime, and the dispute is over whether any or some or all of the brush strokes were by Leonardo's own hand. Again, there may be good reasons to think that it was not, but the only specific analysis offered in the article to this effect is that "convolutional neural networks" found that it was not. An earlier version of this article also stated that "the background in the Isleworth painting is considerably less detailed than the background in the Louvre painting", but provided no source for this statement, and is no longer in the article. BD2412 T 03:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: A lot of what you are proposing would work far better and be more appropriate in Speculations about Mona Lisa or an article of that kind. The fact that many sources say "most experts are skeptical," or imply that in some manner, is enough evidence that the scholarly consensus is not for the painting. Once again and I'm baffled how you have missed this point: This article is under construction. Of course the lead is supposed to represent the body of the article, I am working on making the article do so! I took a different route and did the lead first, since as you recognize it was so unbelievably misconstrued with a phrases like "authorship by Leonardo was "confirmed"." Any reader will notice the template at the top that says "under construction." So please, take this into account. I enjoy working on real Leonardo paintings and am simply doing this one to remove misinformation – not exactly the most enticing motivation. Jean Pierre Isbouts's opinions may end up being added/kept but I doubt Alfonso Rubino will, at least not without a note that he is literally a part of the Mona Lisa foundation. Aza24 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that we are that far apart here. For example, I would completely agree with such a note with respect to Rubino. I'm sure you don't want to remove from the article all reference to the fact that various people have, for whatever reason, made their assertions about authorship of the painting. The information presented in the article should reflect the sources, and what is sourced should be included with sufficient context for the reader to understand the controversy at issue. Again, I would expect this to include some content explaining the characteristics of the painting that experts think would exclude it from Leonardo having a hand in it.

Also, you may want to add an {{In use}} template to the article, to indicate the work underway. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

And that information will be included – to some extent, once again this is an article on the painting, not some "Two Mona Lisa theory". If you knew that the article was under construction and not complete then why did you interject in the first place? Please ask yourself what you hoped to achieve in this conversation as it seems truly pointless. If you were concerned about how the information was portrayed in an article that was noted to be under construction, why wouldn't you bring it up in the talk page before editing it? I was never planning to only show one side of the argument, I have barely even touched the authenticity section yet. Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are "under construction" to some degree or other. There were circumstances here that caught my attention, and I have examined them—no differently than I have with thousands of articles before—and explained some key aspects of them. I think that the article is generally improving from where it has been in the past, but I am also familiar with the human tendency to overcorrect from past mistakes. Of course, the degree to which the article should reflect the dispute about the provenance of the painting should approximate the degree to which sources reflect on that. BD2412 T 04:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Konody

I noticed that this reference:

<ref name="Konody">{{cite newspaper |last=Konody |first=Paul G. |date= February 15, 1914 |title=Jump up |newspaper=The New York Times |page=}}</ref>

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)

@BD2412: 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)

Yeah, good catch BD2412. Ceoil (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Infobox attribution

Since ජපස 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)

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)

@ජපස: 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)

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)

(edit conflict) 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)

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)

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)

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)

In favour of "Leonardo and other(s); or workshop of Leonardo and other(s)". Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My only concern here is the article. This is part of the reason compound edits are an issue. I have no opinion at all on the other matter. jps (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok. I think we should start thinking about removing rather than adding. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@CNMall41: 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)

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. BD2412 and CNMall41 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)

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)

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)

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)

Organizing the article

BD2412, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per the others, excellent work in putting all of this together. I actually think this is fine the way it is. Since different experts have directed comments to different specific attributes like the face, the dress, the hair, it makes sense to keep everything about them in sections. We can sit on it for a few days before deciding anything. A note on "the mainstream consensus," though. The problem here is that there are sources that disagree not only about the painting, but whether there is a mainstream consensus about it. Since this is a contested issue, the role of the encyclopedia is not to pick a side, but to explain the differing takes on that issue. OR and SYNTH are often interjected into articles when they shouldn't be. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Ceoil: 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)

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)

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)

Indeed and just to be clear to CNMall41'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)

There are quite a few unsourced assertions in the attribution section. Ideally, what is unsourced should be tagged {{citation needed}}, 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)

CNMall41, 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)

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)

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)

CNMall41, I advise you to read more carefully what Aza24 has said. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tags

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)

Yes we're on the right track now I think; if Ceoil and BD2412 agree, I would think can be removed as well. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree with this. Looking at the progress of the article from before the tags were added to now, it's a completely different piece, much better balanced and frankly much more informative. Any COI content has been wiped out at this point. I'll go ahead and remove the tags. BD2412 T 23:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done BD2412 T 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• agree with all this. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)