Talk:La Bella Principessa

Revising
I've removed several florid passages, whose author edited under Martin Kemp's name--the tone really suggested an attempt to confirm the attribution to Leonardo, and was, one hesitates to say, unacceptably promotional. If said passages were indeed written by Professor Kemp, an acknowledged authority, they may nonetheless constitute a conflict of interest. However, his input here would still be invaluable, and said description could be restored in different form, and sourced to Professor Kemp. I've also added a section on the disagreement with the attribution, taken from the current lengthy New Yorker essay. The article still may have bias issues, as recently suggested by another editor. Until now it was a virtual sales pitch, and a great work of art, like any subject, can stand on its intrinsic merits, as well as good encyclopedic sourcing. JNW (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Added further commentary, with sources. Found Dorment's article, with comment on tone of the book. Removed bias tag. JNW (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternate theory
The new attribution proposed from Santa Fe is interesting, but it's not clear yet how much weight it carries. Are there any other major media sources covering this? JNW (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent news on the painting 9/2011
See more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15105442 Drieakko (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens, thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard about this drawing in a recently aired NOVA broadcast titled "Mystery of a Masterpiece". It motivated me to do a little quick searching. I've found at least one more secondary source as well as Lumiere Technologies' own webpage on this topic. I don't think I'm an experienced enough editor to work this in to the article, so perhaps others can assess these sources and see if anything can be added. Krellkraver (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a misleading statement in the wiki entry. The wiki entry reads, "Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, said simply 'We have not asked to borrow it.'" But the cited article is from April 2010 - the October 2011 article linked by Krellkraver above clarifies that Dir. Penny did not include the item as it is not a painting. That may have merely been intended to smooth over public relations, but as it is, the wiki entry implies (pretty strongly) that the National Gallery denies authenticity, but in fact, they haven't taken a position. 69.251.45.144 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The exhibition included plenty of drawings, all borrowed. Johnbod (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of Schnorr von Carolsfeld image?
I have a suggestion - the "Disagreement" section mentions Julian Schnorr von Carolsfeld and a theory that his "Half-Nude Female" drawing depicts the same subject. Perhaps, for comparison and convenience, an image of that drawing could be inserted in that section? There is  - under a public domain license. I don't have the skills to pull off that kind of edit and I'm not sure if anyone else would be curious enough to look want to compare the two. 69.251.45.144 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnbod (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the picture as well as some pictures by Leonardo that have been noted for their similarity. Koyos (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

1480s or 1490s?
currently, the article describes the image as 1490s fashion in one section, & 1480s fashion, made bwn 1480 & 1490, in another.

without any explanation or reconciliation of the dates.

so which is it? or why the disparate dates?

i can't go hunting for this right now, so it would be good if somebody else fact-checked that.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed, Amandajm (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move article to La Bella Principessa

 * Dear Sam,

You reverted my amendments to the page which is titled Portrait of a Young Fiancee, which I was trying to rename/re-title as La Bella Principessa, which is the title of the picture. Many of the references refer to books and articles about La Bella Principessa. Moreover, News or Book search using a search engine returns far more information about items relating to La Bella Principessa. Indeed, it is only Wikipedia that alludes to the Portrait of a Young Fiancee. Are you able to change the title to La Bella Principessa and remove the redirect page from Portrait of a Young Fiancee? JiffyJifster 11/03/2015 JiffyJifster (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made zero edits in Portrait of a Young Fiancée so far, but since you bring the article to my attention I have looked at, and as you introduce countless referencing errors by copy-pasting text from the article instead of doing it in edit view which would have retained the correct references, I am going to restore a previous version. I can tell from the article history that the subject is a delicate matter. Please go slow on editing and provide edit summaries for all edits.


 * As for the article title it was Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress when created in 2009, which is very close to Chritie's title Head of a Young Girl in Profile to the Left in Renaissance Dress. On 22 February 2012,  to "La Bella Principessa",   to So-called Bella Principessa an hour later, and Amandajm moved it the next day to Portrait of a Young Fiancée. According to  the work was in 2008 titled Profile of a Young Fiancée (my emphasis, as opposed to Portrait), Martin Kemp then first called the work La Bella Milanese, but quote "there were complaints that it made her sound like a veal chop, so [...] Kemp gave her the name she now has, La Bella Principessa." This and a quick search leaves me with the impression that you might be right and that La Bella Principessa would find support per WP:COMMONNAME. However, as the title has previously been controversial, consensus should be reached on the article talk page first. If consensus decides that La Bella Principessa is the better choice, it just takes an admin to delete the current redirect to make way for the move. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above was posted on my talk page. I copy it here and Support the proposed move to La Bella Principessa for the reasons given above. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Bump: A Google search for various titles sans "wiki" (including or excluding the accent on "Fiancée" did not significantly change the results):
 * 105,000 results for La Bella Principessa
 * 13,800 results for Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress
 * 10,400 results for Portrait of a Young Fiancée
 * 7,290 results for Profile of a Young Fiancée (12,200 without excluding "wiki")
 * 1,500 results for La Bella Milanese
 * 1,280 results for Head of a Young Girl in Profile to the Left in Renaissance Dress

The results look pretty definitive. La Bella Principessa seems to be eight times as common as the next most common title for this drawing, and ten times as common as the current title. Shall we go ahead and move it now, or does somebody still object? P Aculeius (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing as there's been no comment opposing this move for over a year, I've gone ahead and moved it, and adjusted the text accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Expert Opinions section needs balance
Fairness demands that the names of experts who disagree with the Leonardo attribution (and there are many) should be added to this section. aldiboronti (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring the list of experts who support the attribution of the work to Leonardo. Since it occurs in a section about the attribution of the work to Leonardo, it wouldn't logically include those who disagree.  There's an entire section devoted to those who dispute the attribution following the one about the attribution, and by my count it names eight scholars, historians, and art experts who dispute the attribution on various grounds.  Each of their reasons for doubting or disbelieving the attribution to Leonardo is discussed.  That doesn't include the expert who wished to be anonymous, or the art forger who claimed to have created it himself, both of which are also mentioned in this section.


 * In essence, there are two relevant sections: those who attribute the portrait to Leonardo da Vinci, and those who doubt or disagree with the attribution. Each section is extensive.  It's certainly possible to improve or elaborate on either.  However, if you add a list of dissenting opinions to the section discussing those who attribute the portrait to Leonardo, then you risk changing the tone of the article from a neutral point of view to a skeptical one; instead of one section of "pros" and one section of "cons" you wind up with one section of "pros and cons" and then a section of "cons".  If you want fairness, then you'd add a section of "pros" to the one on "cons" as well, and you'd have two sections of arguments and counter-arguments.  That wouldn't make any sense.


 * What might make sense would be to present any particular theory that could be argued either way based on different interpretations as its own paragraph or subsection in a section about specific controversies. i.e. person 1 says that the vellum could have been genuinely old material that was repurposed by an art forger, while person 2 says that this wouldn't account for the precise placement of certain features in the margin that suggest that it was cut from a particular period book that the forger would not have been able to examine or duplicate, and person 1 or person 3 says that the appearance of matching the book is really coincidental, because any random page cut from a book that size could have those features, then person 2 responds with precise measurements or unusual features that he says couldn't be the result of coincidence, persons 1, 3, or 5 contradict that theory and explain why, etc.  In other words, if a particular line of inquiry has sufficient back-and-forth to justify its own discussion with both pros and cons, that would be fine.  It just needs to go in a separate section, and not in the "pro" section or the "con" section.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits of March 23–27, 2017: Maintaining NPOV
On March 23, NickCT changed the "artist" heading in the infobox to from "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci" to "unknown, purportedly Leonardo da Vinci", and changed the title of the article section, "Attribution to Leonardo" to "Support for Leonardo attribution". As these changes tended to violate the Wikipedia policy about maintaining a neutral point of view, I reverted them. On March 27, the same editor made these changes again, on the grounds that because some experts disagree with the attribution, the changes made the article more neutral, rather than less. I believe that the editor has misunderstood WP:NPOV, and am reverting the changes again. However, it seems appropriate to leave a fuller explanation of the reasons why these changes violated NPOV than an edit summary allows.

With respect to the change in the infobox, the portrait is factually "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci." That doesn't mean that Leonardo was the artist; it doesn't mean that his authorship isn't disputed. The fact that his authorship is disputed by some experts does not make the portrait unattributed or the artist "unknown". We don't use "unknown" whenever the authorship of a work is disputed or in any degree uncertain. We don't list the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey as "unknown, purportedly Homer". "Attributed to" is an accurate description that falls within normal usage in this context. "Unknown, purportedly..." is not only non-standard, but in this instance runs afoul of WP:ALLEGED, which is handily restated in NPOV. Yes, there is doubt as to the authorship, but by using "purported" in this way, the editor is implying skepticism (further emphasized by eliminating the factually accurate phrase "attributed to"). Thus, the previous wording is both more accurate and more neutral.

In the case of the section heading, the editor is attempting to give equal weight to those disputing the attribution, although the contents of the section fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to equal weight or even that they represent a majority view. The first four paragraphs of this section are based almost entirely on a Daily Telegraph article by Richard Dorment, and a New Yorker article about Peter Paul Biro, the fingerprint expert who believed that a print on this portrait was a good match with another print from an authenticated Leonardo. Of the remaining four paragraphs, only two dispute the original attribution, both with completely incompatible theories. One is by an art expert who thinks he knows of someone else who might have made the portrait, and the other is that of a notorious art forger claiming that he made it himself.

So what we have here is one section containing a thoroughly explained analysis of the attribution, together with a list of experts who concur with it; and another section which criticizes this part or that part of the original attribution, and suggests ways in which the portrait could have been made by someone else. We have an attribution, and some arguments against the attribution. They're not of equal weight, and shouldn't be presented as if the matter were really just a toss-up in which the original attribution is essentially "as likely as not" to be incorrect. The editor in question seems to be trying to dispute whether the portrait has been attributed to Leonardo, not whether he actually made it, and that's why it's not neutral. P Aculeius (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - Nice wall of text. I read the first paragraph. Anyways, you seem to agree that the attribution is "disputed"? Is that the verbiage you want? The current wording doesn't work because it gives folks the false impression that attribution to Di Vinici is widely accepted. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the policy in question, and don't want to go to the trouble of reading about why your edits are being reverted. I've tried to explain quite clearly: the fact that a portrait is attributed to someone doesn't mean that it's universally acknowledged to be that author's work; if it were, there'd be no need to say that it was "attributed".  The use of "purportedly" in this context implies that it's probably not the person named, which violates NPOV.  The factually correct description is "attributed to", not "unknown, purportedly".  Both this and the change to the section header suggest that a portrait isn't attributed to anybody unless nobody disputes its authorship, and that all of the various experts need to agree before it's "attributed".  That's not how attribution works.


 * The section header change also suggests that the section disputing the attribution (note, they're disputing an attribution, not a "purported attribution") is of equal weight to the section laying out the various grounds for the attribution. But it's not.  Nearly all of the opposition is cited to the same two articles, only one of which actually stakes a position (the other one is mostly a profile of the fingerprint expert, although it quotes several museum curators whose opinion is mostly limited to statements that they don't think it's authentic or that it doesn't look like a Leonardo).  There's one paragraph about an expert who has an alternative attribution, and one about an art forger claiming to have made it himself.  Much of this section is a hodgepodge of vague criticisms and speculation, much of it contradictory.  It's perfectly appropriate to have it in the article, but it's not entitled to equal weight.  The change creates a false balance.  That's why your edits are being reverted.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - I've explained to you that saying simply "attributed to" is misleading. We can look at wordings other than the one I'm proposing, but we can't simply say "attributed to". Please propose an alternative. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hardly misleading to state that something attributed to someone is attributed to that person. The section about the attribution plainly shows that it is "widely accepted".  That's not to say "universally accepted" or "accepted without hesitation or uncertainty".  But the fact that a large number of experts agree demonstrates that it is widely accepted.  What's misleading is to change "attributed" to "purportedly", "disputed", or anything else that implies, "probably not".  Furthermore, demoting "Attribution to Leonardo" to "Support for Attribution to Leonardo" creates a false balance between two sections that are clearly not equivalent.  You still don't seem to understand that the fact of the portrait's attribution is not in dispute.  The two sides are not arguing over whether attribution to Leonardo has or hasn't taken place.  Simply from a logical standpoint, you have to have an attribution before you can dispute it.  Also, from an idiomatic and logical standpoint, it needs to be "opposition to", not "opposition for".  It's clear you want to make these sections parallel, but they're not, and shouldn't be labeled as if they were.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Ah! Ok. Sorry, I think we were approaching this from different tacks. I've only read a dozen or so sources on this topic and from those sources I got the impression that majority of scholarly opinion was against the authenticity of the painting. You don't think that's right?
 * Perhaps we simply need to test what the consensus in RS is regarding the authenticity issue. Does that sound fair to you? Would you like to propose the test methodology? I'd suggest simple search engine testing.
 * re "attribution to Leonardo has or hasn't taken place" - I'm not arguing that the attribution hasn't taken place. I'm arguing that putting "attributed to DiVinci" in the Infobox gives readers the false impression that DiVinci was definitively the painter. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole meaning of "attributed" is that the named person was NOT definitively the painter. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Google "Define attribute" and you get ascribe a work or remark to. I don't think "attribute" infers ambiguity (or if it does, it's less common definition of the word). NickCT (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In art history and the art trade "attributed to" is absolutely a different statement to "by", and means it is uncertain: typical auction house usage, National Gallery, London,, , and so on. This is very well understood within the field, but I agree is probably not by the average infobox reader. Another reason to drop the infobox imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - re "probably not by the average infobox reader". Yes. And I think that's the crux of it. This strikes me as a WP:NOTJARGON issue. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as a "NOTINFOBOX" issue. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started informally collating RS, randomly selected by picking the first apparently reliable sources that show up after blindly Googling : "La Bella Principessa" "Da Vinci". Results so far are 2 articles against the DaVinci attribution, 1 article in support of the DaVinci attribution and 3 neutral. Those RS's cite roughly equal numbers of scholars on both sides of the debate. I'll keep digging.... NickCT (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a very helpful approach, especially without allowing for dates. Kemp is a big name, but certainly most other experts were against him, at least initially. The sheet was not in the London Leonardo exhibition, & Nicholas Penny strongly against it. The interesting question now is how much the Crakow torn page has altered things. I suspect the question is up in the air for the moment, with consensus opinion perhaps forming. Meanwhile WP should just report the division of opinion. The current infobox seems ok, though I'd remove "Unknown", perhaps replacing it with "Uncertain". Obviously if it is Leonardo then it is not unknown. This could be a good case where the facts are not straightfoward, and dropping the infobox format may be best. I'd support that.  Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * re  I'd remove "Unknown", perhaps replacing it with "Uncertain" - Ok. That seems reasonable. Done.
 * re Meanwhile WP should just report the division of opinion.  - Agree. But we also have to be sure we're fairly representing the division in opinion per WP:BALANCE. NickCT (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I suspect the see-saw is still in motion. These things often take a while to settle down. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Yes. The see-saw swings. And we swing with it. NickCT (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But we don't know where it is. 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an article on provenance but not on attribution in an art-historical sense. It is an important topic, and frequently misunderstood. A proper attribution by an expert is not guess-work or speculation, but an expert judgement based on the available evidence. At best, there will be a consensus judgement from several acknowledged experts, but it will rarely be definitive and of course consensus can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.100 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Bella Principessa. 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/20140310064247/http://www.3pipe.net/2011/07/enhancing-art-of-seeing-leonardo-case.html to http://www.lumiere-technology.com/images/Download/Profile_Pr_Vezzosi.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on La Bella Principessa. 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/20110612074323/http://svt.se/2.34007/1.1932778/la_bella_principessa_pa_plats?lid=senasteNytt_1765014&lpos=rubrik_1932778 to http://svt.se/2.34007/1.1932778/la_bella_principessa_pa_plats?lid=senasteNytt_1765014&lpos=rubrik_1932778
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025204850/http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2815 to http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2815
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151203055958/http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/could-leonardo-s-bella-principessa-be-greenhalgh-s-bolton-sally-/ to http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/could-leonardo-s-bella-principessa-be-greenhalgh-s-bolton-sally-/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Which side of the vellum?
According to the prolific forger Shaun Greenhalgh, who claims to have produced the 'Principessa' drawing at some time in the 1970s, he drew it on the outer 'hair' side of the vellum, instead of the inner 'flesh' side, which is easier to draw on and 'much preferred'. He says that he made this unusual choice because after sanding off the writing on the smooth side (used originally in the late 1500s for a legal document) he found that this 'looked too new for anything old to look right on it.' He also says that 'the texture of the sanding should still be seen on its reverse'. These are objective physical characteristics which could be either confirmed or disproven by careful analysis. I may have overlooked it, but I don't think the present article states which side of the vellum was used for the drawing. If it was in fact the inferior 'hair' side, defenders of the attribution to Leonardo need to explain this.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:E5FC:ACB5:5D20:7BD0 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)