# Talk:Satala Aphrodite

I have doubts that this title exists outside of extremist nationalist Armenian sources that consider historic truth to be subservient to national interests. The recent opinions and actions of those extremists, and the responses given to them, needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. "Bronze head of Aphrodite / Anahit" is how it is described by the British Museum curator Vrej Nersessian in his book "Treasures From the Ark". So Satala Aphrodite would seem to be the most appropriate title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is described as the Satala Aphrodite in the British Museum online catalogue. [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You have many rather strange doubts (usually unfounded, as I have seen), but I see it they are synonyms. It could work with either; I don't mind - just like this person Nersessian says, they are basically the same thing. --92slim (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"Synonyms" does not disguise or excuse the fact that you claimed "Per British Museum's own description" as the reason for making the name change - but the British Museum's own description actually refers to it as the "Satala Aphrodite". If you "could work with either; I don't mind" then please revert the article back to the old name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --92slim (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:See also says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

The article Tiptoeblabla. It's obviously obsolete information that needs to be fixed; and it is sourced. --92slim (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what age you are - maybe you have never done any research or you would know how invalid your "The webpage of the British Museum says" wording is (as was your earlier OR "curators at the British Museum" version). The British Museum is not a person - the anonymous author of its webpage is just reproducing the opinions of experts and some of the sources of those expert opinions are indicated on that webpage, such as the two citations for the statue's past exhibition which should refer you to the descriptions in the exhibition catalogues published at the time. You have been repeatedly deleting the content of one such catalogue and replacing it with an inferior and superficial source - the British Museum website. It is inferior and superficial because it is not the original source of the opinions and is summarizing those opinions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If that is indeed true, provide the "superior" sources or stop disrupting the article and calling names. Just because you say the British Museum website is "inferior" doesn't make it so. I cannot see any "original sources" referenced anywhere. --92slim (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As per usual, Tiptoe, you push your own version of events. "Anahita" is an Armenian goddess, so the reference will stay in the lede, whether you like it or not. Yes, have a go; also, valid sources shouldn't be deleted randomly. The webpage (inferior or not does NOT matter) says what it says, don't push your own research here, maybe ring the British Museum and complain, but the reference will stay. No OR, SYNTH or other BS excuses; it's verbatim as it's written there. Oh and please don't bring me the "Roman Armenia isn't Armenian" BS again, or I will personally complain again about you, something I'd rather not do as it won't make you realise the problem. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Satala Aphrodite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Marking a spot to review this one – I'm busy today so expect comments during the coming week. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, having read through this article twice now the main concern I have is that I have no idea what the scholarly consensus on anything about this sculpture is.  For instance, in the section §Origin, I count no fewer than twelve different sources cited which express an opinion on when the bronze was created. The sources cited span over 120 years (at least from HB Walters in 1899 to Matthew Canepa in 2020). The most common opinion of those sources seems to be that it dates to the 2nd or 1st century BC, but the whole thing is so unsystematic that it's really hard for me to assess which of these sources are still relevant (do any modern sources really still care about Walters' opinion on this?) and what the consensus is. They're all interspersed with different sources' opinions on where the head was made.  Just organising that section so those two questions are dealt with separately would make it much more comprehensible.  Just quickly I would suggest a section which looks something like:

The date, location, and author of the statue are unknown and debated among scholars. 
[Paragraph discussing possible date, organised so that all of the proponents of various dates are discussed together]
[Paragraph discussing place made]

[Paragraph discussing authorship]
If there are recent summary sources which explicitly say discuss the dispute and say what the scholarly consensus/range of opinions is, that would be super helpful.  (In writing up this review I realised that though the article currently says that the date, location, and authorship  are disputed, I only see discussion of a dispute over the date.  If all three are disputed then we need to discuss the alternative viewpoints regarding all three; if there is agreement on the other points then we shouldn't say there is a dispute that does not actually exist.)

I've improved the section as you suggested. I haven't seen any summary sources, but the modern consensus seems to be 2nd-1st centuries BC. ----Երևանցի talk 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have very similar issues with §Subject.
A few other miscellaneous observations:

As there are two existing well-developed sections on the reception of the sculpture, I'm not sure what the point of a tiny "in popular culture" section is; especially since I would not consider any of the three included examples popular culture!
Fixed. I've moved the content of that section into the sections on reception. ----Երևանցի talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a shame the lead image isn't great, but there's nothing better on Commons; unfortunately gallery 22 in the British Museum is currently closed but when it reopens I can try to get a better image.
That'd be great! ----Երևանցի talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I see some weird framing of some aspects of the article, e.g. "An investigation in 1874 by Alfred Biliotti, the British vice-counsul in Trabzon, concluded that the head was found by...". If the facts here are not in doubt, then why not just "The head was found by..."; if there is doubt, then we should explicitly say so.
They don't seem to be in doubt, just wanted to indicate the source. I've rephrased that sentence. ----Երևանցի talk 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Lots of very dated sources are used. These generally are used for the opinion expressed in that source, for which they are reliable, but I do wonder if they are always relevant.  For instance, if there is no secondary source for "Engelmann's article was translated into Armenian in 1883", is it important enough for us to include in the article?
Important only in the sense that there was immediate interest in Armenian scholarly circles toward the artefact. I've turned the sentence into a reference, which seems more apporpiate. ----Երևանցի talk 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting on with this review. In general the article is much improved; a few more specific points come to mind.

The lead seems a little short here. Could a little more be said about the sculpure's reception: that gets two whole sections!
Done. ----Երևանցի talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
"where it was registered on August 20." This seems like a plausible inference from the museum registration number, but unless there is a source explicitly supporting this claim I think the exact date is probably both original research and not relevant here. Modern registration numbers certainly aren't dates; I can't find an example from the 19th century which definitively wasn't but this isn't an inference I would want to rely on
Agreed. I've removed the dates since I couldn't locate them in secondary sources. ----Երևանցի talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
"The bronze is 2–3 mm (0.079–0.118 in)" is this degree of precision in the conversion useful?
Fixed. ----Երևանցի talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
'The subject is in a "pensive mood."' this is an opinion that should be attributed
Fixed. ----Երևանցի talk 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I will go over the article once more and spotcheck some more sources, but this seems to be in a pretty good position now Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Finally getting round to finishing this. Spotchecked five references and found no issues, so I'm happy to pass this now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)