Talk:Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Museums Ratings

Today I added both the WikiProject Museums tag to this article and corresponding ratings for quality and importance in that same category. The article could benefit greatly from more information about the stringent stipulations that Isabella Stuart Gardner imposed for care of the collection as well as information about the collection itself. It is a very good start. Danwalk (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to M.O. of the theft

As stated on the FBI page concerning the theft (and every other account of the theft referenced in Wikipedia), there was no break-in. The thieves talked their way in, telling a security guard they had been sent to investigate a disturbance at the site. Publius3 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value of Property Stolen

According to the FBI reference given, the estimated value of artworks stolen was $300 million, not $500 million. Now maybe it's in the FBI's interest to undervalue property so that criminals do not know what they have. Where did the $500 million figure come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.72.131 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be updated pricing. [1] or it could just be the high end of an earlier estimate. [2] Eudemis (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is adjusted for inflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.222.79 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images of all the stolen items

Are on the FBI website. Would be good to get them all on a gallery. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gardnermuseum.org/resources/theft. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. CrazyDreamer (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision diff showing the content added by User:Gilliam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museum&diff=447947292&oldid=443018587 I'm investigating the rest of it now. CrazyDreamer (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything but his description of the stolen works was copy-paste. Have revised a few stray sentences, removed the rest. The full diff of the actions I've taken is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museum&diff=447947292&oldid=443018587 Will post user warning. CrazyDreamer (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

The section on the art theft of 1990 makes up the majority of the article. I think the incident stands well alone, and ought to be split into an article of its own. --CrunchySkies (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What's the need? The article is still pretty short, & a split like this should mainly be done when it grows too large. No sign of that happening. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to agree with CrunchSkies; this is a significant enough event in the art world that it should have its own page. There is more information that could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutch1317 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The section on the theft is already large enough to stand on its own, and dominates the rest of the article. I think that spinning off the theft section and replacing it with a brief summary here would improve the balance of this article. It would also make more evident some aspects of this article which need improvement (such as insufficient footnotes for some sections). Reify-tech (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came here just to see about the art theft, it deserves its own article 139.218.177.138 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely should be split. The section on the theft is larger than the rest of the article, and yet that section can still be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.7.240 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should definitely be split, with just a short summary on this page and a link to all the details on the new "theft" page. The people coming to the page that want to know about the museum will be a totally different set of people than the ones reading about criminology history. It would simply be following the precedent of the thousands of other crime related stand-alone pages on Wikipedia. Johnandrus (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This museum deserves a better WP entry, and an entry for the theft could be properly categorized. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis robbery is one of the most notorious and important in art history and none of the art has yet to be recovered.174.29.173.7 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis wasn't a minor robbery; the thieves got away with $500 million dollars worth of precious art from some of the most important painters in history. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recognizing the 25th anniversary of this despicable plunder the theft should be a separate Wiki entry. David Garrick (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and split it, as there was 10K+ of text there and it could easily become a C-class if it was cited properly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal battle over Gardner's will that the museum be dissolved if the collection were altered

I lived in Boston and regularly visited the gardner museum at the time of the theft, plus a few years before and after. I remember the talk around town was that the Gardner museum was going to have to close after the theft. "According to the will if the arrangement of any of the museum’s holdings changes, the entire collection, the building and the land beneath it must be turned over to Harvard."[1]

Actually, the details are much worse than that. Her will states that if the collection were changed at all, she wanted to give the land, Museum, works of art, etc., to the President and Fellows of Harvard College to sell, dissolve the Museum, and invest the proceeds to increase the salaries of professors of Harvard.

If at any time the Trustees above mentioned shall place for exhibition in the Museum established under this will any pictures or works of art other than such as I or the said Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in the Fenway, Incorporated, own or have contracted for at my death, or if they shall at any time change the general disposition or arrangement of any articles which shall have been placed in the first, second and third stories of said Museum at my death, except in the kitchen and adjoining bedrooms on the first floor, then I give the said land, Museum, pictures, statuary, works of art and bric-a-brac, furniture, books and papers, and the said shares and the said trust fund, to the President and Fellows of Harvard College, in trust to sell the said land, Museum, pictures, statuary, works of art and bric-a-brac, furniture, books and papers, and to procure the dissolution of the said Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in the Fenway, Incorporated, if it has not already been dissolved, and convert its property into money, and to invest the proceeds of the same in income bearing securities or in land, and to employ the net income thereof and of the said sum of one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) in the increase of the salaries of professors of said college, or in sustaining scholarships, but the income of no scholarship shall be less than one thousand and two hundred dollars($1,200) a year. The said President and Fellows of Harvard College shall have power to change investments from time to time; and in selling the pictures, statuary, works of art and bric-a-brac which have belonged to me or to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in the Fenway, Incorporated, in order to invest the proceeds in income bearing securities or in land, I direct them to sell the same in Paris, France.[2]

I love the ISG Museum and am relieved that they did not have to close. I think that the art world and Harvard University would agree. I also think that her will suggests that she only meant to prevent people from tampering with what she had created and had not imagined the greatest property theft in history being a cause of change. But I think this legal battle is an important part of the history of the museum. Other people and organizations should know to consider theft in their will. They should be aware of what we almost lost...

GlenPeterson (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goodnough, Abby (2009-03-13). "A Wounded Museum Feels a Jolt of Progress". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 December 2017.
  2. ^ "Isabella Stewart Gardner's Will". Scribd. Retrieved 29 December 2017.

photo of "new wing"

The photo purporting to show the skylights over the atrium of the new wing appears to be showing the original building, not the new wing at all. Anyone have a better photo to show the new wing? 2603:4011:100:0:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NatalieV10. Peer reviewers: Njtalaber, Evebautista.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

I read that the museum was designed "in the style of a 15th-century Venetian palace" and remains unaltered. Now judging from the picture of the courtyard and atrium this might be true, but I was very surprised to see the overall appearance of the museum. As I have been to Venice I have not seen any of the palaces there looking anything like the Gardner museum. Fenway Court looks like a warehouse somewhere in the suburbs. The strange v-shaped form on one side, the randomly assembled down spouts, the different shaped and sized windows, the oddly spreaded balconies and bay windows. And that just judging from one pic. The photo from the opposite side is no less puzzling: oddly spreaded chimneys, iron fencing right under the rooftop and fireladders put wherever there was space on the facade. I really can't believe this was all intentional and architectural designed. It look as if whenever there was the need to add something they added it at the first free space. So please can somebody with more knowledge of the museum than me explain that to me? Thank you very much. It is appreciated! Glamourqueen (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is all very confusing. Perhaps the Heritage register listing info can elucidate? Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking about the building's exterior, but it's the interior facades of the courtyard that are an embarrassing wealth of elements modeled on, or (more usually) actually liberated from, Venetian exterior facades. EEng 02:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely, from the photos. The article says "liberated from" is rather a myth. Anyway, it should all be much clearer. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're saying. What photos show what is not entirely what? And what in the article relates to "liberated" (which I use above as a euphemism for "stolen")? EEng 04:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museum"