Talk:Laocoön and His Sons

Lead argument

The lead paragraph currently reads:

The statue of Laocoön and His Sons, also called the Laocoön Group (Italian: Gruppo del Laocoonte), has been one of the most famous ancient sculptures since it was excavated in Rome in 1506 and put on public display in the Vatican Museums, where it remains today. The statue is very likely the same one that was praised in the highest terms by Pliny the Elder, the main Roman writer on art, who attributed it to Greek sculptors but did not say when it was created. The figures in the statue are nearly life-sized, with the entire group measuring just over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) in height. The sculpture depicts the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons Antiphantes and Thymbraeus being attacked by sea serpents.

An anonymous editor changed this to read:

The statue of Laocoön and His Sons, also called the Laocoön Group (Italian: Gruppo del Laocoonte) is a marble sculpture depicting the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons Antiphantes and Thymbraeus being attacked by sea serpents. Thought to have been sculpted between 20-50 BC, it was excavated in Rome in 1506 and was later put on public display in the Vatican Museums, where it remains today. The statue is very likely the same one that was praised by Pliny the Elder, who attributed it to Greek sculptors but did not say when it was created. The figures in the statue are nearly life-sized, with the entire group measuring just over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) in height.

The edit comment reads "Fixed the sequencing of the first paragraph to give top-level information faster, and added the agreed-upon dating. Removed needless hyperboles." I agree with that. In particular, the edit begins with a description of the piece, something that you really want for any work of art. He also adds the probable date, which is another fact that should be up front.

@Johnbod disagrees, and has reverted this change. He claims that the revision is "much less informative as to the essential points." I guess I don't see what's essential about "it's really, really famous" and "it's in the Vatican."

Tagging some recent contributors: @MaybeItsBecauseImALondoner, @Entranced98, @Rui Gabriel Correia. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, what is most essential, the "top-level information", is exactly that "it's really, really famous" and "it's in the Vatican", and that it was arguably the earliest classical work of art given a museum-type display. The highly obscure subject is mostly known only because of this work and some later derivations of it, and the date is far less certain or "agreed-upon" than the ip's edit implied, which it why it was not included in the first para. These are less important. MOS:ART says all articles on individual works should give the present location in the first sentence; I can't imagine why this is objected to. The supposed "needless hyperboles" are well-referenced statements of fact. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I made the above edit. I was struck by the juvenile tone of the original. I'm a new editor, so I'm keen to learn why a work of art being 'famous' is important information - that seems quite circular to me. And to write that Pliny was 'the main Roman writer on art' is surely too vague, and not required. 'Main' by what standards? I understand why the edit was rejected, but still believe this opening paragraph reads very poorly. 2A02:C7C:F079:E00:6D94:57F4:C1FB:A7CD (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It's nice to know that at my advanced age I can still manage a "juvenile tone"! Calling Pliny 'the main Roman writer on art' is not at all "vague". It would be a slight overstatement to say he is the only Roman writer on visual art, but not by much; nobody else (whose texts survive) wrote anything like as much, just as with Vitruvius for architecture. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@ 2A02:C7C I prefer the existing lead paragraph structure, although I wouldn't start a fight about it. Re sentence clause/claim order there is no denying it's fame is of equal general intrest to its artistic accomplishment, and from experience on wiki not explaining Pliny's unique status could equally lead to talk page accusations of "elitism" <shrug> Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Both versions contain the exact same sentence about Pliny. In fact, both versions contain exactly the same facts, except the revised version adds the generally accepted date.

The main issue here is not what facts we should present but what facts we should present first. I submit that the first fact anybody want to know about a thing is what the thing is.

With that in mind, let's try a version that begins by answering "what" but retains the prose that @Johnbod considers essential:

The statue of Laocoön and His Sons, also called the Laocoön Group (Italian: Gruppo del Laocoonte), is an ancient Greek sculpture depicting an episode from the Trojan War, where the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons were attacked by sea serpents. It has been one of the most famous ancient sculptures since it was excavated in Rome in 1506 and put on public display in the Vatican Museums, where it remains today. The statue is very likely the same one that was praised by Pliny the Elder, the main Roman writer on art, who attributed it to Greek sculptors but did not say when it was created. (It is now thought to have been sculpted between 20-50 BC.) The figures in the statue are nearly life-sized, with the entire group measuring just over Template:Cvt in height.

Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That order seems neither here or there, and wouldnt hold my interest if, as most readers do, was hopping from article to article. Its very dry and bloodless. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

eg "nearly life-sized" is enough, rather than Template:Cvt in height. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Just as a point, and why am trying to scale down activity here, this drive by got-ya pseud intellectual focus on a small part of the first sentence of the lead is sooo low energy and unsubstantial. The article is 3729 words long, but its obvs nobody complaining has read beyond the first 40. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, nobody is complaining about the article at all. It's just that @2A02:C7C:F079:E00:6D94:57F4:C1FB:A7CD made an edit that I thought was good, @Johnbod reverted it, I disputed the reversion, and Johnbod told me to take it to the talk page. So I did.

Can we maybe have this difference of opinion with a little more WP:NICE, please? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apologies [User:Isaac Rabinovitch|Isaac Rabinovit]], I missread. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't an ancient Greek sculpture, being too late. I take it having a whole sentence in brackets was a slip. The date is discussed in a later section, & I still think the statement "It is now thought to have been sculpted between 20-50 BC" is too uncertain. I'm fine with adding "an episode from the Trojan War". Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, all valid points, but the big question is: can you go along with the lead sentence being a description of the statue? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, is it? I must say I don't really see the need, given the obscurity of the subject, which in the current version is given with more detail at the end of the para. The size ought to be close to the subject, as it is now. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)