Talk:Apollo of Piombino

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdavaiga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek or Roman?

Looking up the Louvre page for this (I can't link to it directly, but a search for "Piombino" will take you there) gives the impression the issue is not settled. Ridgway's judgement has not been infallible and there has been more recent research, perhaps a detailed description of the arguments would be useful. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A good lead. I've added the Louvre on-line catalog to the footnotes and incorporated more details. What particular issue with Ridgeway's judgement sticks in one's memory?--Wetman (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, notoriously there is the case of the Getty Kouros. Though it hasn't been definitively shown to be a forgery, I believe she and and the other art historians involved have retreated somewhat from their original positions. But more than that I think "proved" is simply too strong a term here in what is an ongoing debate. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 07:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that marble: here's a balanced summary as of 1991: too early to dismiss Ridgeway's judgement entirely. Well I've added phrases directly based on the Louvre's on-line information, nothing more. If you can come up with any current article claiming this item is Greek, since you feel "the issue is not settled"... well, I suppose you'd have already added it to the article, if you had. Too bad we haven't a good photo of the Apollo. --Wetman (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo of Piombino. 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/20110518075928/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225376&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225376&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500817&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225376&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225376&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500817&bmLocale=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)