Talk:Dying Gaul

message: I saw a copy of the statue in the National Museum in Prague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.70.120.83 (talk • contribs) .
:If anyone is interested, there is also a copy of this statue in the RDS in Dublin. I don't think it's full size but impressive none the less, I don't know if that is relevant enough to be in the article though. --Hibernian 03:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: The reference section is great, but the article needs some inline references.--Esprit15d 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline references 

message: The 'Dying Gladiator' is mentioned in Henry James's 1875 novel Roderick Hudson. Shall we use a redirect?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for Chapter V, part I, in Willa Cather's novel The Song of the Lark...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use redirect for 'Dying Gladiator' 

message: No mention is given of exactly how the Gaul is dying. Is there a visible wound? If so, where? If not, how can one suppose he is dying? --70.131.112.41 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can tell from his posture, and from the sword wound on his upper right abdomen, as you can tell by looking at the main image on the page. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of what is he dying? 

message: The second paragraph says that "He is shown fighting against death, refusing to accept his fate."  I don't think that his posture and expression indicate this, and I don't think that this is how the sculpture is usually interpreted.  Byron, quoted below, wrote that he "Consents to death, but conquers agony" which I think is the general consensus (and where, I think, the power of this artwork is found).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.204.190 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fighting death?"  Really?  

message: There is a copy of this at Iford Manor in Wiltshire. As children we knew it as the "Dying Gladiator". It is a far better quality statue than the Brigg example I suggest, with a more accurate pose. It is on Google Maps/Earth see here. The Brigg example appears to have had his head replaced in the wrong position and not to the same quality as the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.12.50 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the Ilford picture cannot be uploaded to wikipedia (ie. it read "all rights reserved")--Asteriontalk 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I realise that, but maybe it would be worth referencing in the text in any case. Note that it is Iford not Ilford. Since I live nearby, perhaps I can take a shot. Unfortunately it is on a high wall in a narrow lane. The shot on Google Maps was taken from the manor gardens opposite, and I don't know if they are open to the public regularly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.30.47 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will have a look to see if there are any pictures of this copy out there too that we could use. I am going to check in Flickr and geograph.org.uk, which are usually very good. --Asteriontalk 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrghhh! I found one but you can hardly see it . Still looking... --Asteriontalk 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  I finally got around to taking that photo - only nearly 6 years on! --Cliffordslocombe (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better example of copy 

message: There are in-line citations throughout the article. It gives a good historcial background on this statue, including various names it has been given. It is also a very readable article, and good, clear  images (pictures) that go well with this article. I gave it a Class C rating. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Really good article

message: Did anyone notice that the facial features of this galatian looks stikingly like the stereotypical turkish male?
I couldnt help but notice.77.250.189.211 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmh, I don't think he does at all. His face, along with the hair and bushy mustache, looks like the typical poilu. I imagine his hair to be light brown, if not sandy blonde, but that's simply opinions anyway. Munin75 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  He look turkish 

message: The Discovery section says Napolean confiscated it in the "Treaty of Tolentino" but later the Influence section says it was the "Treaty of Campoformio"? 
Should this be clarified?
24.5.103.186 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Treaty? 

message: Copied from my talk page:
*The page Dying Gaul was moved in January without discussion to Dying Galatian. This seems incorrect to me—not that the figure isn't a Galatian, but that the name Dying Gaul I would have thought far more common still. I didn't want to move it back or propose a move on the talk page without being sure. Is this statue increasingly more well known by the name Dying Galatian? Srnec (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it does seem to be, which was news to me - . I think the museum may now be using the Italian version of this. But it's still 2K ghits vs 375K for "Gaul" and premature to move it. Anyway, just because he was Galatian doesn't mean he wasn't a Gaul, especially to the Romans. I'd certainly move it back & let him propose a move. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree - it should be moved back; the sculpture is currently identified as The Capitoline Gaul  in the museum...Modernist (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on this page here on the same site. But it's now at the NGA in DC as the Dying Gaul. I'll copy this to the talk page there, let's continue over there.  Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that makes three that think it ought to be moved back. I agree that nothing about this use of the term "Gaul" is inaccurate, so far as I know. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Moved back. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: Can it be made more clearly up front, what the date of this Roman copy was, and, separately what the estimated date of the Greek original (bronze) was? 
The sentence structure is very unclear on these specific seperate dates. Thanks.
:Clarified date of the original. As is common, no one seems very keen to date the copy very precisely.  Probably say 30BC - 170 AD. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: A useful addition to the article would be an explanation of how it is known that this is a copy of alost original.Bill (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence it is a copy

message: Is the dying gaul statue a lie? Historians do not know for sure that romans ever sculpted it and it's supposed provenance could be completely fabricated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.239.27 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely fabricated?