Talk:Victorious Youth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LunaNoir91.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

article name

Should this article be renamed to Victorious Youth or Victorious Youth (sculpture). I don't see that Getty should be in the title? --Duk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, moved to a more appropriate title. Thanks. Nishkid64 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I "decide" that Borghese Vase is an inappropriate title, because the Borghese don't even own it any more? Should I apply my own "better" title for the Riace Warriors, because they weren't made in Riace? Should I have an "opinion" on the naming of the Giustiniani Hestia, one way or the other? --Wetman 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Getty museum itself calls it "Victorious Youth", not "Getty Victorious Youth", and the second reference calls it "The Victorious Youth". Neither use "Getty" in the title. So why is our article titled "Getty Victorious Youth". its just a question :) --Duk 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the first time the J. Paul Getty Museum published the sculpture, the title of the publication was The Getty Bronze (J. Frel, 1978). The type of the bronze is an ephebe or a diadoumenos. But that's just the subject matter. An equally naive Wikipedian once created the article Rape of the Sabine Women beginning confidently, "The Rape of the Sabine Women (1579–1583) is a sculpture by Giambologna..." ...under the impression that there was only one treatment of that subject. Other titles for the Getty Victorious Youth might be the Getty Ephebe, or even the Fano Athlete. (Read the article to see why; both are redirects, so that an educated Wikipedia reader will find the article.) Some antiquities gain a name from where they have been publicly shown: you might always have wondered about Apollo Belvedere. Equally you might never have heard of it and not care. Others gain a name by former owners: I mentioned the Borghese Vase: did you click on the link to see why it was mentioned?. The Benois Madonna, on the other hand, is a title that creates ambiguities (read the article to find out why). Duccio's Maestà has been called that since at least the sixteenth century. What if some Wikipedian administrators talking it over privately decided that at Wikipedia it was to be Christ in Majesty? What if there were other Christs in Majesty? In the end, there's just no substitute for competence and modesty. I'm well aware of the limitations of my own competence, and as I reach my edges, modesty tends to rear its head. --Wetman 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and yes I did read your links. And completely agree that this is the place to talk about it, not privately as you mentioned above. --Duk 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The museum-name seems to have a marketing purpose. I suggest to move to Fano Athlete, as for other romans sculptures, the more important name is the city in which was founded and not the museum. See for ex.: Dancing Satyr of Mazara del Vallo, Lošinj Apoxyomenos, Antikythera Ephebe, Riace Warriors, Bronzi dorati da Cartoceto di Pergola (see here at it.wiki, anyone interested for a en translation?), etc, etc. Museums changes, the sculptures not. --Accurimbono 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Victorious Youth due to the legal trials involving the museum with Italy, anyway both names are kept on the articles incipit. Nickel Chromo 10:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An arbitary, ignorant, inept and arrogant move unworthy of an editor whom we doubtless all revere. The action is disgraceful, though the person is above reproach. --Wetman 09:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindly & warm words about my action, my culture, and my personality. Anyway I don't care about it. As you can see on its official website is the same Jean Paul Getty Museum who first referred to the statue as Victorios Youth, please have a look: [1] and [2]

ciao! ;) Nickel Chromo 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

larger photo

I just uploaded a larger photo (taken last year) but it's all new to me. I couldn't figure out how to make it fit the page! Sorry. Canon 5D with 24-70 mm f 2.8 Canon zoom @ ISO 1,000. Oh wait a minute I guess it formatted itself.. Wtin 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Victorious Youth. 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/20071019144117/http://www.archeomedia.net/articolo.asp?strart=2471&cat=Restauri%20e%20Recuperi to http://www.archeomedia.net/articolo.asp?strart=2471&cat=Restauri%20e%20Recuperi
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lisippo.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203225250/http://getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=8912 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=8912
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062228/http://msn-list.te.verweg.com/2006-May/005154.html to http://msn-list.te.verweg.com/2006-May/005154.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523225916/http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/arte/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=62&ID_articolo=324&ID_sezione=117&sezione=News to http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/arte/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=62&ID_articolo=324&ID_sezione=117&sezione=News
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523225929/http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/arte/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=62&ID_articolo=545&ID_sezione=117&sezione= to http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/arte/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=62&ID_articolo=545&ID_sezione=117&sezione=

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) 15:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic copy in Provenance section

I have no connection to the Getty or Marion True nor do I have any wish to advocate for them, but I don't see how the text beginning with “The Getty Museum is involved in a controversy …" down to "True is currently under investigation by Greek authorities over the acquisition of a 2,500-year-old funerary wreath.” belongs in the entry on this sculpture.

There are Wiki entries on the Getty Museum, the Getty Foundation, and Marion True where this text more properly belongs. No question that the Getty Museum and foundation have bought from shady dealers and been unethical, but this should be covered in their entries. True's Wiki entry covers her questionable dealings and should include the business about the Greek wreath, if it can be sourced. I find it odd and there is no reference for such a claim. If verified, it should be added to True's Wiki entry with a reference. I'm looking into it and will delete it if I can't track down verification.

In sum, the digression into material not related to the sculpture, and not related to the legal case surrounding the sculpture, seems gratuitous and out of place.

I recommend that the material cited above be deleted from this entry and added to more appropriate entries.

Comments welcomed!

Thanks! Sam Perkins (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Totally agreed. If there is a controversy section for relevant Getty Museum articles, it should be moved there and maybe link to this article's Provenance section. I'd delete it right now but it's good copy on the topic, albeit irrelevant here. Fuser55 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Fuser55. I appreciate your speedy comment. I also noticed that the line about her being "currently under investigation by Greek authorities over the acquisition of a 2,500-year-old funerary wreath" is not true, or no longer true, as the case was resolved, as explained in the Marion True Wiki entry. I'll see what I can do to bring more robust sourcing and updated material. Tx Sam Perkins (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)