Talk:Angel of Grief

Many versions
I believe that there are many versions of this work scattered around the USA, and perpahs beyond. The original is in Rome, after all. So I invite everyone to look around ab=nd let's get a great inventory going. More tomorrow. 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The spelling strongly suggests that this was an UNSIGNED suggestion by me. Carptrash (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Teapartyangel.jpg
Image:Teapartyangel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Odesangel.jpg
Image:Odesangel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just moved this here to talk about it
" (except the death date on the sculpture reads "1895", which certainly suggests its date of creation is not 1894)"

Someone had added this at the beginning of the article and while it might seem "obvious", well it's another of the reasons why the word "obvious" is on my list of 23 words and phrases that mean " in my opinion." Both William and Emelyn Story died in 1895 and it is very likely that the work was already completed before she passed on in January of that year. It was Story's last work, and I feel (another term for my opinion that we should leave the date as 1894. Carptrash (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously Story 'finished' his work 1895? Someone has to look at the References again. Hybscher (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, your "obviously" just means "in my opinion". First of all, I probably added all the references in the References section and they will be of no help. I'm saying (i.e. "my opinion") is that Story finished it in 1894 and that the date on the marker (thanks for the close-up) is the date that it was carved. Story would not have done the carving, one of the reasons why he and many other American sculptors took up residence in Italy was that there were many very skilled carvers there, so that the Artists did not have to do that difficult and demanding task. Carptrash (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to thin
the gallery out a bit. Two pictures of the same work is a lot. We have three and even four of the same statue. Too much. Feel free to leap in, or wait and see what i do. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

North Vancouver Cemetery/Charlie St. Cloud
More information on this one is needed. According to the author's notes at the back of my copy of Charlie St. Cloud (paperback with movie poster cover), the prop department added many dummy gravestones to North Vancouver Cemetery in order flesh it out visually. So far I have not been able to find a photo of this statue - not even a screenshot of the film. Usually if you google "angel" + the cemetery name for any of the stones listed on this page for the USA, you can usually find at least one floating around on Flickr or DeviantART. Sounds like some legwork needs to be done to confirm whether or not the angel shown in the film is an original fixture in the cemetery, or was a set piece for the film. AmyTheSpiritSeeker (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do 2D images on headstones count?
On the same trip that led to the discovery of the Guiterrez monument at Forest Park Lawndale in Houston, I came across another stone in the cemetery that depicted the Angel of Grief, but it was as a 2D image carved into an upright stone. I am not sure if this should be included in the list or not. You can view it on FindAGrave, Memorial #114373836, and evaluate it. AmyTheSpiritSeeker (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Approach to this topic
This article should ideally be an encyclopedic approach to the topic, not simply a list of a whole bunch of mostly non-significant replicas cited to photos of same. To that end, I'd like to re-introduce this version of the article. It's reliably sourced and avoids issues of what we aren't. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and anyone else who might be passing by. The Angel of Grief statue is an icon.  There are not other, or very few other pieces of sculpture that can make this claim.  The Statue of Liberty almost can, but it is always copied as the S of L, so its status is derived from that.  This statue, purely on the merits of the emotion that it elicits from the viewer has come to represent “Grief” all over the world.  This is demonstrated by the number of “not notable” copies of it from around the globe. They need to be included to illustrate this point.
 * Pictures of the work have been featured on the covers of several (maybe 4) record covers. However this is difficult to document because for a while the covers were shown in the article years ago, that was a copy right violation, so they were removed. The records (a term that includes CDs maybe tape covers)  themselves (which I have not seen) probably do not mention where the image is from because it is long out of copyright. Yet this is important information that should be included in the article but is not. I have been editing at List of Confederate monuments and memorials where an alley in Aiken, South Carolina, "Beauregard Lane", is considered “notable” because it is named after some CSA general.  An Angel of Grief in Costa Rica is a lot more notable that that and needs to remain in the article. Striping this article down to bare bones does not allow the reader, all 86 a day, which I find to be surprisingly high, to really understand how important this work is.Carptrash (talk)
 * But we really don't need to list all existing copies individually to make that point (and perhaps someone at that other article needs to hear that that's not what we consider notability). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have spent two months at the other article, don't bother. Actually I spent 5 years at the other article (maybe 10 at this one), which is why these (here and there) edits distress me.  And which is why I am not really going to get into it here either, why I reverted back to your change. After 10 years i decided that those were good for the article, after, what 10 seconds you decided they were not. I'll just chalk it up to another Lost Cause. Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)