Talk:Lisa del Giocondo

Suggestion

The heading of the picture, "Thought to be Lisa del Giocondo", seems a little awkward to me. Is there any way this could be worded a little more formally, or possibly be removed? *Cremepuff222* 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cremepuff, yes perhaps. For now I removed it. -Susanlesch 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems a lot better now. :) *Cremepuff222* 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your suggestion, it really did help a lot, yes. -Susanlesch 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice!

Having done Giovanni Arnolfini, I toyed briefly with setting up Category:People notable only for being the subject of portraits - Paul Gachet and er.... But an interesting article anyway. The Villani are I think also a notable family. The other-wives-with-prominent-Florentine-connections is a wierd similarity between Lisa and Giovanni A - I bet it would be possible to show they were related! Johnbod 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Johnbod. Now that camera phones are invented 6 billion people are prospects for your category, at least in some jurisdictions. Giovanni Arnolfini is a nice article. Thanks for pointing it out. -Susanlesch 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rucellai

These people say it was the important family: "Francesco iniziò sin da giovane a lavorare nell'azienda di famiglia e nel 1491 sposa Camilla Rucellai appartenente ad una delle migliori famiglie della Firenze dell'epoca." Johnbod 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eek, what language is that? *Cremepuff222* 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian - "Francesco began to work in the family business when young and in 1491 married Camilla Rucellai who came from one of the great families of Florence". Johnbod 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonbod I know in my head you are right but haven't found a reference (yet) that can be used. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For Johnbod. Hurray, source found, pages 55 and 56 in Pallanti. Camilla was the daughter of Mariotto, a different branch of the family than Giovanni Rucellai. She lived in the Palazzo Rucellai until she married Francesco. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done! If she lived in the palace, she must have been a relatively close cousin, one would think - I think relatively extended families lived together in those days. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This author will be a source for new books and papers now that Lisa is positively the subject of the Mona Lisa again, at least that is a prediction. What a great service he and a few others have done, more than I will probably ever understand. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prediction came true! Martin Kemp and Pallanti wrote a book about Lisa published in 2017. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A "see also" section

Hello. I've become rather interested with this page, so I thought I would help out with improving it a bit. I was thinking that we could add a "see also" and possibly "external links" section. Would anyone be willing to add a section like this? *Cremepuff222* 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not me but if you have an idea for improving the article that's good news. The Manual of Style advice for what you mention seems to be '"See also" for one section', WP:LAYOUT, WP:ALSO and WP:EXT. -Susanlesch

Another question. :) When addressing her in the article, should she be referred to as by her last or first name? I've always been taught that the last name should be used for formal essays, but I see in other parts of the article, she is mentioned as "Lisa". I just want to keep everything consistent in the article. *Cremepuff222* 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Call her Lisa." Lisa is what the sources say—Müntz, Zöllner and Sassoon and Kemp (from the parts of their works I have seen). Then, Leonardo is Leonardo and Francesco is Francesco. Does that help you? One thing that could be checked for consistency in this article is the name of the painting "the Mona Lisa" or "Mona Lisa"? (I have not looked up what the experts say about that.) -Susanlesch 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose I understand your point. Yes, we could nom it for GAC, but I haven't really compared it to the guidelines that. That'll be a good goal to set for this. *Cremepuff222* 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct. Pass

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Pass

2. Factually accurate?:

1. (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout, Pass

   (b) provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and Pass

   (c) contains no original research Pass

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; Pass, dealing with her life and the painting, but adding more details to the latter is vital, but not enough for me to fail its GAN.

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Very weak pass,but I understand the difficulty or even perhaps the impossibility of acquiring more pictures

Requires tackling the mentioned problems above. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Auawise, thank you so much for your time and your review. Seems to me that if one or more of the arts-related WikiProjects decides it can brave the vandalism there to raise the Mona Lisa article to higher quality, and/or if some other sources become available through newly scanned books, some new sources could emerge. I hope there will be an opportunity to make improvements here. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

Saint Francis needs disambiguation. --Randomblue (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Fixed. He was Francis of Assisi. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Name on subsequent references

WP:NAMES says, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only", and I don't think that del Giocondo should be an exception. I suggest changing most instances of "Lisa" to "del Giocondo" beginning with "Little is known about del Giocondo's life." I'm bringing this up on the talk page because I see that the name question has been discussed here earlier. The sources who call her "Lisa" may have been following a different style guide, or they may have reduced del Giocondo to Lisa out of habit because she was a woman. In any case, she was del Giocondo and not the painting and not the ideas associated with the painting, and referring to her by her surname in this article would help make those important distinctions more clear throughout. Finetooth (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your comment. Yes, I saw the potential for wanting to apply the MoS in this case, too. Hidden above under 'A "see also" section' is the answer for this case anyway: all four of the experts cited here call her Lisa, and almost without exception. I am sorry but it is not my place to disagree with them. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Hi, again. You seem to have a lot of copyediting credits. Would you think Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Single_name covers Lisa? I looked again in and near MoS and this seems closest: "Sometimes, mostly for names of antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to indicate a person unambiguously." I did write to someone who works with Mona Lisa a while ago to double check this, in case that helps. I think the only place I have ever seen "del Giocondo" in a reliable source was in an Associated Press article hosted at the NYT. P.P.S. I looked these up again. Sassoon called the painting Mona Lisa and the person Lisa five times, Lisa Gherardini six times, and Lady Lisa once (approx. and this is the paper not the book). Müntz used Mona Lisa and Mona Lisa Gioconda. Zöllner who I asked preferred Lisa. I returned Kemp's book but think he said Lisa at least once. I really don't see a precedent for del Giocondo, sorry. -Susanlesch (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've thought about this a lot, and I've just jumped in from outside with no special background in the subject. I need to think about this some more, and I'm in a real-life situation that's going to make it hard for me to carry on anything like a real-time conversation here for the next few days. My Internet connection will be intermittent. The Italians seem to prefer La Gioconda. The New York Times, following its own style guide, calls her "Mrs. Giocondo" here, which makes me laugh. You might convince me that "Lisa" is best, but I'm not yet convinced. Finetooth (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At last, I'm back to a stable Internet connection. I've had time to think about the name some more, and I've come around to thinking your interpretation of the MOS naming conventions is fine. Lisa it is. I will confess to being pushed in this direction not only by your reasoning but by the gold FA star that appeared in my absence. In fact, the article is truly well-done, and I enjoyed reading it. When I appeared on the scene, I intended to do the requested LoCE copyedit but got stuck on the name. In reading through the article again, I see very little I would change. I think the imperial-metric order should be reversed in a couple of places, and a nit-picker would add no-break codes to a couple of things, and I might add or subtract a comma or two. If you want me to do these things and sign off on the LoCE form, I'd be happy to. On the other hand, you might prefer to withdraw the copyediting request. Just let me know. Congratulations on the FA. Finetooth (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great news about Lisa! If you have time to do a LoCE review it would be an honor. Thanks so much for thinking about her name. Mrs. G is so funny. I missed that one. You make life good. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pallanti book

Mona Lisa Revealed' by Giuseppe Pallanti has been added as a source. A correction. I heard about it in the popular press and mis-characterized it as "amateur" (and as a result spent my small budget for this article elsewhere). Rather, it is a beautiful book whose author has both credentials as a historian and as a person who has lived in Florence. Clearly and as soon as possible, more parts of Lisa's life can be described here. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ludovica

Upon entrusting her care to their daughter Ludovica .... Earlier in the article it lists their five children, and Ludovica is not mentioned. This is a discrepancy. 91.105.2.153 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am adding the Pallanti book mentioned above as fast as I can, and hope other editors will help too. The old accounts don't match his work. I for one imagine that discrepancies will be common for a few more years until new works by the experts incorporate Pallanti (only my guess as a non-expert). I'll try to fix this one today, thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Marietta took the name Suor Ludovica when she became a nun. That explains that. Thanks again for your note. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agostino Vespucci's marginal note

I read in "The Life Behind The Mona Lisa" by Lord Byron that there were rumors of her being lesbian the latter part of her life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivantrollet (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no such Byron piece under that title. More interesting: the marginal note made by Agostino Vespucci in a 1477 printing of Cicero's letters that he was neatly correcting in the margins as he read through it, dated "8bre 1503" comparing Leonardo to Apelles and mentioning the portrait of Lisa del Giocondo he was at work on, confirms what Vasari said, and confirms Vasari's date too. You'd hardly know it from reading the article. Did you'all get the drift? I did. I haven't looked into Mona Lisa to see how it's mentioned there. Seems like the big story was rather passed over. --Wetman (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wetman. Yes, this article is about Lisa. Now that you have seen the Mona Lisa article, where the margin note is reproduced courtesy Uni Heidelberg, do you think more belongs here? -Susanlesch (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the image here too. It looks nice. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Why is the subject of this article referred to by her first name throughout - surely her surname should be used, in line with the MOS? 92.40.8.97 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Del Giocondo" denotes where she is from. Likewise, Leonardo da Vinci is known as "Leonardo" throughout. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - that makes sense! 217.171.129.75 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci is called so because he was born in Vinci. Del Giocondo is his husband's name (from one of his ancestors, called il Giocondo, the playful one), not where she was born. The page's name should be Lisa Gherardini. LorenzoF06 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Icon?

Shouldn't the Icon be Secular icon? I've changed it on the article page, but I'd need an admin to change it on the featured article page on the front page. 76.116.109.221 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, fixed also in a photo caption. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

del Gioconda?

Is the form "Lisa del Gioconda", mentioned in the lead, really commonly found? I know that the painting is often called "La Gioconda", but the form "del Gioconda" seems to be un-Italian. Lesgles (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed and fixed in the lead. Enough names already. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not enough names: the article begins "Lisa del Gioconda" (with the Italian pronunciation of Giocondo), and the picture box is so titled, and in the box, her husband's name is given as Gioconda.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The featured article has different info from the doc.

The Wiki main page states that she was a mother five children yet when you go to the document it tells she was a mother of six children. Please revise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Lisa also raised Bartolomeo, her husband's son. I don't think there is any way for non-admins to revise the main page. This TFA is no longer there as of a few minutes ago anyway. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

other sources

The article in it.wiki appears to have a number of Italian-language sources that may be useful for building this article. Mangostar (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do add them if you have them. Pallanti in English was released in 2006 and from your note, in 2004 in Italian. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I believe that this statement “The people of France have owned the Mona Lisa since the French Revolution” could be improved and clarified by indicating that the picture was at first acquired and owned by Francis I of France during the sixteenth century, and that during the French revolution it came into the possession of the people. In this way, it will be explained, that the picture was in custody of France several years before the revolution. --Taty2007 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to add that. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mona Lisa drawing

Mona Lisa

"Another view of Lisa in a cartoon for Mona Lisa attributed to Leonardo"

Mona Lisa

This is what a Leonardo cartoon looks like

I have hidden this drawing because it is not a "cartoon for the Mona Lisa" as stated here and would never have bee attributed to Leonardo by any truly reliable art historian. Reasons

1. A cartoon is a "working drawing". It is the drawing from which a painting is taken. It almost always contains more detailed information than the finished work, not less. This is very obviously a drawn copy of the picture, because all the details of the drapery have been minimised, and drawn with very little understanding of form. Compare with the real cartoon.
2. The face is not three-dimensional. Although the artist has captured the expression and the sfumato quite well, he/she has flattened the features, particularly the nose. Compare with the painting, and a real cartoon.
3. Compare the bosom of the three pictures. In the drawing it is apparent that the creator of this work decided on the palm thing, then drew the drapery over the breasts around it in such a way the the whole draped front appears flat. On the original, the breasts are well-rounded by the drapery. The two deep shadowy folds may indicate that Mona Lisa was wearing a "breast-feeding" dress, which had extra folds and two slits at the front, located in extra fullness between the breasts.
4. There is no concept whatever of where the arm bends and the elbows are. The drawer didn't know, they merely copied. The forearm of the front arm is particularly flat.
5. Look at the simplistic, copyist's version of thos beautiful hands, reduced here to a few straight lines. This is not to say that Leonardo himself was not capable of reducing a hand to a few lines. He did so in the drawing of The Virgin and Child with St Anne and John the Baptist. But the drawing of St Anne's hand contains far more information about the three-dimentional form.

Let me point out that if this drawing was accepted as genuine, then it would be enormously famous, and reproduced in every single book on Leonardo, and shown alongside the painting. It would have been scanned for evidence countless times by people wanting to understand more about how the World's most famous portrait was created.

But the facts are that the Mona Lisa has been copied, and copied and copied. This present copy might have been done by an admiring student. But on the other hand, the state of the drawing looks to me as if someone has deliberately attempted to imitate the state of the Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John. This has included glue several sheets of paper together, and making the edge tatty in a similar way.

But look at the differences: there is no way in the world that the creator of that magnificent cartoon could have produced anything as totally average as the Mona Lisa drawing. Don't be fooled!

Amandajm (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm, thank you very much for your post here. Unfortunately I failed in an attempt to have the offending file deleted, which was uploaded on top of my upload. Here is the discussion which resulted in "keep". I might try again someday but probably not now. It was foolish of me to accept it as it was presented! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Veit Probst, speculation?

Greetings, Hans Dunkelberg. Thank you a lot for your addition to this article. But I would like to understand better but sorry to say I don't speak German (I have to depend on Babel Fish to translate the article you cite). I understand that Dr. Probst is the director of the Heidelberg Library? Can you please explain why he says that the Vespucci note dispels all doubts about Lisa's identity, and then he says "However, the theoretical possibility is going to persist Leonardo might have painted a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, but that this might have got lost."? Surely a lot of things could have happened. I think WP:UNDUE would apply about such speculation, for which we have an entire article: Speculation about Mona Lisa. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! I have, coincidentally, just myself got to the view that this thought of Probst can really only be understood as a very, very hypothetical one. Probst is the director of the Heidelberg University Library, yes. He has probably uttered these last faint doubts, in the essay, a little bit, out of the desire not to overrun others with the sensational consequences of that seemingly so inconspicuous margin note. Just change my edit back, I have nothing to object, any more!

The further sentences by Probst on the matter mean:

"The picture that today hangs in the Paris Louvre would, in such a case, not have anything to do with the one that Leonardo painted during his second Florence sojourn. This last little doubt could only be overcome, if a further portrait of Lisa del Giocondo existed so that we could compare the depicted persons. All, not least Leonardo`s very scanty pictorial work, tells us that in the Louvre picture really has been portrayed Lisa del Giocondo."

--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that translation. Yes, I would imagine someone in his position would be asked about this often and perhaps he felt it would be helpful to write about it. I'll change the article back. Thanks very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that was the thing I had tried to depict. I have now changed my probably wrong formulation "I have, coincidentally, just myself got to the viewpoint" to "...view", which is probably clearer. Thank You for reverting my edit! It would have been embarrassing for me to do that myself — how should I have justified that? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved. By the way, I have no problems changing my mind, and Wikipedia makes that pretty easy. :-) Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Probst`s utterance is probably a concession to that certain kind of thoroughness that drives one to demand logical proofs, also in the realms of historical sciences, sometimes.

I am going to translate the German version of the margin note that he offers on the Heidelberg University website, into English, so that every reader of Wikipedia will be able to meditate about this issue on the better new basis that has now come up. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Remarks on the Florentine history

Hi!

I`m a little confused about this edit by SusanLesch. For me it is quite clear that it is wrong to insert two whole sentences on the situation in the Quattrocento Florence, in this article, in which there is not said a single word about Lisa del Giocondo or her family. Is it possible to put into a few words why this should be done? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now inserted the remarks that I have removed here into the article Florence, section History / Middle ages and Renaissance / Rise of the Medici. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory

The web page that you are inserting into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa is absolutely inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source and appears to be original research, both of which make it unusable. Please stop inserting it repeatedly into these articles, or you may be blocked from editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? You have to explain this. This[1] is the main/ only source for the Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority. Simple Blue (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know if anyone tries to reinsert this. WP:Verifiability does not support inclusion of this page, nor does the discussion at WP:RSN. I note that the person who wrote the web page has been adding it in the past. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Descendants

The article does not state whether or not Lisa left descendants. In fact, it fails to mention what happened to her three sons, only touching upon her daughters and stepson. If any information is known about the sons, it should be added to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jeanne boleyn. Thank you. You raise an excellent point. I don't know the answer. When I get back to my books at home in a couple weeks I will look for any specific statements about her sons and descendants if any. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a note from Prof. Dr. Zöllner: "This notarial note of 29 January 1536, modern date 1537, refers to the testament and names as universal heirs Francesco's two sons Bartolomeo and Pietro or Piero." Best I can do for now. Again thanks for the suggestion. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tabloid-style sentence

The tabloid-style sentence in the lead "it took on a separate life from Lisa, the woman" sounds very unencyclopedic for a FA article. It needs to be reworded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jeanne boleyn. You are welcome to suggest other wording. I think the sentence means what it says. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gherardini or Ghirardini ?

Leonardo welcomes Mona Lisa Ghirardini into his studio in the city of Florence to paint a portrait that was never delivered to the owner. http://www.amazon.com/DA-VINCI-IN-LOVE-Leonardo-ebook/dp/B00Q9AK41U

Sa molto di ro­to­calco estivo il chiasso me­dia­tico sol­le­va­tosi in­torno alla ri­cerca dei re­sti di Monna Lisa Ghi­rar­dini, uni­ver­sal­mente nota per es­sere stata – così si dice – im­mor­ta­lata da Leo­nardo nella co­sid­detta Gio­conda del Lou­vre. http://storiedellarte.com/2013/08/monna-lisa-e-i-collezionisti-di-ossa.html

Also Gherardini or Ghirardini ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.48.157 (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for noticing. Seems like a coincidence (out of thousands of mentions, two people made the same typo). I think we ought to respect the experts. You can look for example at this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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/20110508121954/http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/Englisch/news/monalisa.html to http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/Englisch/news/monalisa.html

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) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lisa del Giocondo. 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/20090203114942/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/fourtune/notes/06.html to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/fourtune/notes/06.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126163045/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/01/19/monalisa_his.html?category=history&guid=20070119134500 to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/01/19/monalisa_his.html?category=history&guid=20070119134500
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008161856/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/02/monalisa_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070502143030 to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/02/monalisa_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070502143030
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629055247/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/culture_1979/museums_4412/the-world-most-famous-painting-has-the-louvre-all-aflutter_6824.html to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/culture_1979/museums_4412/the-world-most-famous-painting-has-the-louvre-all-aflutter_6824.html

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) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa del Giocondo. 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/20071211112851/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226503&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226503&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3BFOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500816&bmUID=1155229237450&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226503&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226503&amp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3Bamp%3BFOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500816&bmUID=1155229237450&bmLocale=en

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) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format

Unfortunately an individual who is now blocked from editing added "use dmy dates" to this article last year. A number of people have tried to clean up the mess. It was written in mdy which is just fine per MOS:DATEFORMAT. I hope no one minds that I just changed it back. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Date format

Greetings, User:Binho24. I object to this edit, with the summary to uses dmy dates for an Italian subject. You can't come in here and change something like that and then disappear. I will have to come back when I have time to correct this. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Section breaks

The section breaks in the Mona Lisa section gave the impression that this article fully covered topics named in the headings. I removed those headings because this article is about Lisa, the subject. We don't have room to cover all those details here, and we don't wish to duplicate effort. They should be discussed in the article Mona Lisa. Much better to minimize that information here. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Painting title

Is the painting called the Mona Lisa or Mona Lisa? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod, maybe you know the answer to this question. MOS:ART/TITLE says the use of "the" is complicated. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Mona Lisa is the title, but like other paintings etc, it's often "the Mona Lisa" in pose. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we'll handle this by ear. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Wealthy or middle class

• Frank Zöllner's 1993 paper in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts was my primary source for this article back in 2008. He infers about three times that Lisa and Francesco were middle class. This article reflects his assessment.
• Along come Martin Kemp and Giuseppe Pallanti who say in a 2017 book they were wealthy half a dozen times. I am not easily swayed by their language.

Does anyone here have knowledge or sources to help us ascertain the truth? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Zöllner's 2006 book can't be read in Google Books or Internet Archive. Afraid I don't read German.
• Britannica doesn't mention wealth or riches and seems to be fact-checked.
• Daniel Arasse says Francesco was "well-to-do" (p. 389)
• Jack Greenstein is critical of his sources and might be somebody I can ask. Despite Zollner's claim ("Leonardo's Portrait", p. 124), Francesco del Giocondo's commissioning of two thirdrate Florentine painters to decorate his family chapel in SS. Annunziata does not put him into the same class of art patron as the Doni and the Strozzi, patrician families with distinguished histories of commissions from first rate artists.

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see someone else working on Leonardo-related topics. You're citing a rather old Zöllner publication, this kind of scholarship can change quickly. Have you checked Zollner 2019 [2003]? Bambach 2019 is also a great source, and frequently discusses all preceding scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, thank you. I'll try to track them down. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, I found Zöllner (from India dated 2015) in the Internet Archive. Even he, who in the past has shown interest in Lisa, drops the personal details from this book, because his topic is Leonardo. There's a guess at why the portrait was commissioned (because Lisa and Andrea had survived childbirth for four months). Otherwise, the Mona Lisa section is about the artist and painting, not about Lisa. I wonder if you have seen Bambach yourself, and perhaps can save me the trouble of locating three volumes (worth more than $400) of work about the artist. If you own the Bambach books, maybe if there's something there you can cite her? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I do have the Bambach books, but would not be able to access them until early June when I'm back home. I'd be very surprised if she didn't comment on the Lisa del Giocondo's identity or details on her life (or point to scholarship that does so); she's generally extraoridinarly thorough. I can send you scans of relevant pages when I get back to the books. Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So glad you have them. Summer time frame is fine. Let me know and I'll flip email on. Thank you, Aza24. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, thanks to you I think we can stop the awkward speculation about Mona Lisa's identity. A new sentence cites Bambach (2019) from your copy. Does it look OK? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! Aza24 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• At this period "wealthy" and "middle class" are not at all contradictory - "middle class" would tend to mean "not aristocratic, but with money". To be commissioning paintings for family chapels implies a considerable amount of wealth. Lisa's family were noble, but not wealthy. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Neatly solved, Johnbod, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to Lisa Gherardini?

Hi, I wonder if this should be moved to Lisa Gherardini? I am working on this slowly to avoid a FAR review (one other FA ahead of this one). Not long after this became an FA in 2008 a woman wrote to me saying we should. I asked Prof/Dr Zöllner who deferred to historians but thought what we have is fine (as long as we call her "Lisa"). I'm trying to catch up on intervening books. In Mona Lisa: A Life Discovered, Dianne Hales says on page 2,

Like other women of her time, Lisa would have carried her father's name, Gherardini, throughout her life.

Are there any opinions? We have some time to consider. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We should certainly add it to the lead, but WP:COMMONNAME is the key policy for such cases. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea to say this in the lead. In Google NGrams, maybe the century-old mentions of "Lisa del Giocondo" balance out more "Lisa Gherardini". -SusanLesch (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

GiantSnowman, I appreciate that you are the 29th author of this article however I expect an administrator with your tenure to explain himself on talk rather than start an edit war. MOS:VAR says Edit-warring over style...is never acceptable. Your first edit waved your arms around MOS:NUM, an entire page, with no clue as to why. The best guidance I am able to find there is For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English...are independent issues. My reply cited MOS:VAR, MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR. Your second edit summary says "date format is not correct for Italian subject" which appears to be what you originally intended to say. Would you please cite the part of MOS:NUM that applies to your assertion? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

DMY is used for Italian topics, not MDY. GiantSnowman 18:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DATETIES is what you're looking for BTW. GiantSnowman 18:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, would you please cite the MOS guideline governing Italians? MOS:DATETIES relates to the use of English. You can see that more clearly in MOS:TIES to which it points. Nevertheless I looked around and I've been wrong since this article became an FA in 2008. Thank you for the correction. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No, DATETIES relates to date formats. GiantSnowman 07:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Third try, would you please quote here the guideline that applies to Italians? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Date and time notation in Italy. GiantSnowman 17:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to claim that DMY is used for Italian subjects. The relevant part of "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" is "Retaining existing format" which states

*The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

Although there is language about using the format most common in a particular English-speaking country when the topic is related to that country, there is no similar language about non-English-speaking countries and all attempts to add such language have been rejected by the editing community. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS on date format by country. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Were you going to notify me directly about that discussion? GiantSnowman 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. I waited three times for an answer to my question. You still haven't offered a Wikipedia guideline governing Italians. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you weren't. DATETIES says to use the country's common date format. Date and time notation in Italy says Italy uses DMY. Do I need to explain it any simpler for you? GiantSnowman 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DATETIES states

For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Strong national ties to a topic) are independent issues.

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976.
• Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format)
• In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.

As I understand this, the first bullet point says the strong ties concept only applies if the topic is related to an English-speaking country. So this bullet point disappears if the article is about an Italian.

The third bullet point is a special case, within the first bullet point; articles about the US military use DMY because the people who wrote the guideline thought that was the usual format used by the US military and other publications about the US military. But if there were an article about the Japan Self-Defence Forces, how those forces write dates when writing in Japanese would be irrelevant to which date format would be used in a Wikipedia article about them.

Finally, Wikipedia policies and guidelines influence each other. Wikipedia articles do not influence the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "Date and time notation in Italy" is an article so is irrelevant in interpreting and enforcing MOS:DATETIES. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that since Italy is not an English-speaking country, MOS:DATETIES has nothing to say here and the predominantly used date style should be continued to be used according to MOS:DATEVAR. Gawaon (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I nevertheless think that it's reasonable to use DMY for subjects related to Italy and other countries where that's the usual date style. But since that's not in the rules, such a change would require seeking consensus here on the talk page first. Gawaon (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR. DMY should be implemented here. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-English speaking countries do not qualify for "strong national ties". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not? What a biased, narrow world view. GiantSnowman 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Because rules about English speaking countries are inherently not applicable to non-English speaking countries. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Now, if you want to argue that we should have a sitewide standard date format that the strong national ties of certain English speaking countries would allow them to deviate from, that's another conversation entirely. But, as the strong national ties rule (guideline? whatever it is) is specifically crafted to only apply to English speaking countries, it is completely irrelevant to Italy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Scandalous visitation

An explanatory footnote avers:

Suor Camilla, who was not chaste, was acquitted in a scandalous visitation by four men at the convent. The men were found guilty.

Um, what? What is this even supposed to mean? What does the explanatory footnote help to explain? --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to fill in the blanks and add all the salacious details you like. I don't plan to. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed it. Doesn't seem to be relevant in context. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Date contradiction

This article says Lisa del Giocondo died July 14, 1542. MOS:JG indicates "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582...." So this date should be understood to be in the Julian calendar. But the Wikidata item for her gives her date of death as July 25, 1542, Julian calendar. Wikidata claims this information was imported from the Russian Wikipedia. Maybe someone with access to a suitable reliable source could fix whichever date(s) is (are) wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kemp & Pallanti (2017) say her exact date of death was not recorded, either in her family's legal documents, or in the official Florence Libri dei morti. She was buried on July 15, 1542, and died the day before on July 14, 1542. I've never edited Wikidata but will try now. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I entered the book in Wikidata but it looks like it was expecting some other kind of source. Does it look OK? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I give up. "Mona Lisa: The People and the Painting, 2017, ISBN 978-0-19-106696-2, p57" should be the reference. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I searched Wikidata for the book, and found it. Once I knew the Wikidata item number, I was able to add it to the claim about Lisa del Giocondo's death date. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)