A fact from Pythagoras (sculptor) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,414 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Pythagoras, a sculptor from Samos in the 5th century BCE, was credited with the innovation of sculpting athletes with visible veins?
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
@John Maynard Friedman: Re your query at Talk:Pliny the ElderHelp needed with cryptic citation in another article, please?, coincidentally archived as I was writing this, that "Pliny the Elder, l.c. § 5" citation's copied from Smith's "A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology",[1] where "l.c." is a further abbreviation of Loc. cit. and refers to the Pliny passage Smith cited two columns earlier as "H.N.xxxiv.8.19". The "§ 5" and ".8" are not clear to me but the relevant passage is in Hopper's translation of the Natural History as XXXIV.19 [2], and in Latin editions may be found numbered as XXXIV chapter xix or as XXXIV paragraph 60 [3]. NebY (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY: TYVM, I'm obliged. I'll use Hopper. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though there is some blatant WP:SYNTH involved. Pliny merely says There was also another Pythagoras, a Samian,85 who was originally a painter, seven of whose nude figures, in the Temple of Fortune of the passing day,86 and one of an aged man, are very much admired. He is said to have resembled the last-mentioned artist so much in his features, that they could not be distinguished. At no point does he say that the Pythagoras of Samia is the famed mathematician. {{Dubious}} required, I'm afraid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse. Smith (1867) does not say what the article claims he says (I've added a {{fv}}). The similarity is with another artist (from Samia, not Rhegium, btw), not with the mathematician. And the other artist was quite notable in his own right: is there any record that the mathematician was also a famed artist too?
@Johnbod:, am I missing something really obvious here, so obvious that it didn't need to be said? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed muddled. Pliny distinguishes two sculptors and Smith goes along with that. Our article tells us this is now regarded as a false doubling by Pliny, which seems plausible to me - it wasn't unusual for ancient writers to find two different accounts of the same event or person and take them to indicate two different events/people. Our article misunderstands Pliny and Smith as distinguishing the mathematician from the the sculptor(s) but claiming a physical likeness between them, which neither one does; I suspect they'd have thought it absurd, even insulting, to waste time pointing out that the mathematician wasn't the sculptor(s). NebY (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up a little, which has I think addressed and allowed removal of your tags, but lazily left the structure much as it was. NebY (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it looks good enough to me. Let's leave it at that. Just for completeness, I'll add a See Also for the mathematician. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no idea! Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change the See Also section about Pythagoras the mathematician to a Not To Be Confused hatnote, but that was reverted. It surely doesn't belong as a See Also, though -- that is for further information related to the topic of this article, not further information about something specifically because it NOT related to the topic of this article. It's a See Also section, not a See Instead section. @John Maynard Friedman, can you suggest a more appropriate solution? If you really don't like the hatnote, the only thing I can think of is to delete the See Also entirely and just rely on the (sculptor) title. I don't think that's as user-friendly as the hatnote, but it's better than misusing the See Also for the purpose. I'm hoping, though, there might be some more appropriate structural solution. Gould363 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAMBIG covers this situation. The topic is already disambiguated. Compare with Pythagoras, which does need the hat note because it is ambiguous: the philsopher/mathematician is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but other Pythagorases exist. What we have here is "just" a coincidence of names. I can see that we need to make clear that the philsopher/mathematician wasn't also a sculptor, but WP:SEEALSO is the way to do that. I don't really think that it is appropriate to shoehorn in a reference somewhere in the body but I can see that it is an argument that could be made. I wouldn't oppose it as I have with a hatnote. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need the distraction of a hatnote, and I agree a See Also entry for someone related only by coincidence of name is too tangential. As MOS:SEEALSO puts it, One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. We don't serve readers well by giving them the impression they'll find out more about Greek scupture or art at Pythagoras.
Is it likely our readers have arrived in the wrong place? If they've used a search within or outside Wikipedia, they've seen the title Pythagoras (sculptor) (and very likely seen the title Pythagoras higher up); if they've explored here nevertheless, can we assume they take responsibility and know how to go back? A quick look at what links here doesn't suggest we're digging any traps. Let's remove Pythagoras from See Also and if that empties it, the whole See Also section. NebY (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NebY. I'll delete the See Also. But I'm leaning towards a brief mention in the main text -- maybe at the end of the 1st graf. Something like "He has no known connection with the mathematician Pythagoras, also of Samos2"? [I've read through ref. 2 and think it can be reasonably (if implicitly) sourced from there.] Otherwise it's kind of the elephant in the room. It's certainly what I came to Wikipedia to find out. And having (sculptor) in the title tells you it's not the same person, but it doesn't tell you if he's a son or grandson or acolyte's son or first cousin once removed. Gould363 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, we can't really ignore that elephant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
