This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
A fact from Agesander of Rhodes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Intriguing article, but I found the phrase "This is the classical Spelunca of Tacitus and others,..." very confusing. What is a Spelunca? Or a "Spelunca of Tacitus"? If it was made by the sculptor Agesander, how can it be Tacitus and others' Spelunca? Were they the clients?? Etc etc. Any chance of clarification? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...were discovered at Sperlonga. This is the classical Spelunca of Tacitus and others, on the coast between Rome and Naples, where the emperor Tiberius had a celebrated villa." Oh well. Tacitus & other writers refer to a villa of Tiberius at "Spelunca", that's all. Now it's Sperlonga. Clearly needs rephrasing if it's that confusing. It was all one sentence, which might have been clearer, but it got too long. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Sperlonga is the classical Spelunca mentioned by Tacitus and others, on the coast between Rome and Naples, where the emperor Tiberius had a celebrated villa." which I hope is clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A more substantial issue. The article contains this: "Rice makes the confident and convenient but perhaps unwarranted assumption that only one Athenodoros, the son of Agesander, practiced as a sculptor". However, hte citation for this is Rice, so the phrase "makes the confident and convenient but perhaps unwarranted assumption" represents original research by an editor. Unless a source can be cited critiquing Rice's assumption, it should be rewritten, perhaps simply as "Rice argues that only one Athenodoros, the son of Agesander, practiced as a sculptor". hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I haven't found any exact RS criticising his assumption. However its results are completely ignored by other scholars writing subsequently (largely in French and German, followed by me in JSTOR reviews and articles) who continue to allow for two or more Athenodorus's very happily. No doubt his assumption is rebutted in the full works. Rice in 1986 writes a tad smugly about his conclusions closing the matter, but they have certainly not done so (Sauron's "Un conflit qui s'éternalise: La guerre de Sperlonga" is 1997), nor does the argument even seem to be taking the direction of his dating, but moving to later dates instead. Sauron for example cites Rice, but does not follow his assumption at all, dating them to Tiberius' time. I am about to do Sperlonga sculptures, so may well come up with more. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's clearer (on both counts). If this was GA or FA I still think you'd hit trouble with the latter point, so if had a cite to Sauron you could add in the note, that would be better. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
