User:Endlesspumpkin/Problems with Theoi

The encyclopaedia section of each page is copied/pasted from Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. It has its own inaccuracies, omits sources, and combines material in a way that Robert Graves would be proud of, and is a nightmare if you're trying to write an encyclopaedia entry. Any errors, omissions and conflations in Smith are replicated by Atsma.

Here is an example of two problems from the entry on Diomedes of Thrace (this is not exhaustive):

• "The horses were afterwards set free, and destroyed on Mount Olympus by wild beasts": that account is Apollodorus (2.5.8). According to Diodorus Siculus the mares survived until the time of Alexander the Great (4.15). In later Roman sources Heracles outright kills the horses (Ovid Met. 9.194-96, Hyginus Fabulae 30, Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 6.270, and Helasius Latin Anthology 627.9).
• "killed Diomedes, whose body he threw before the mares": in some variants Heracles feeds Diomedes to the mares (though they do not specify that he kills him first). This is the account given by Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 4.15 in others he simply kills Diomedes and no mention is made of the fate of his corpse (Apollodorus 2.5.8, Ovid Met. 9.194-96, Hyginus Fabulae 30, Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 6.270, and Helasius, Latin Anthology 627.9).

The standard way to reference Apollodorus is Book, chapter, section. This means that I can find the same information regardless of edition or translation. If I look up 2.2.2 in, for example, Hard's translation or Frazer's, I get to the same lines. Despite having Frazer's translation on the site, when it comes to providing quotes from Apollodorus on individual pages themselves, Atsma has chosen to use Kieth Aldrich's translation. Aldrich uses a different system. Aldrich's introduction is barely four pages and does not explain his deviation from the standard reference system. Thus, 2.2.2 means nothing in Aldrich's system, which only uses book and section numbers, and the same information in instead found under 2.16.

This alone leads to many incorrect references to the Library across wikipedia, by people who know enough to know that the reference system should be standard, but not enough to know that Aldrich isn't using it. In the age of LLM chatbots this is particularly irritating – should someone try and google the issue they are likely to be told by the LLM-generated answer at the top of the results that Aldrich uses the standard citation format which is used across all editions of the Library.

• Gives the name as Αχειλος, the transliteration as Akheilos, and the meaning as "lipless". The citation for this figure is Photius' summary of part of the work of Ptolemy Hephaestion. The passage in question is a list of figures name Achilles.
• Claims that this Axheilos "was a shark-formed sea daimon. He was once a handsome boy who was transformed into a shark by the goddess Aphrodite as punishment for boasting he was more beautiful she." The quote provided says that Aphrodite "made him become as ugly and unattractive as he had been beautiful." The grammar is slightly ambiguous, but context demands that the statement apply to Achilles. It notably does not, however, say that he was turned into a shark. A further, minor note: whilst it is reasonable to assume a boast was made, what the source actually says is only that this Achilles won a beauty contest. The Greek can be found here. The relevant section is this: Καὶ Διὸς καὶ Λαμίας Ἀχιλλέα φασὶ γενέσθαι τὸ κάλλος ἀμήχανον, ὃν καὶ ἐρίσαντα περὶ κάλλους νικῆσαι τοῦ Πανὸς κρίναντος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ἀφροδίτη νεμεσήσασα ἐμβάλλει Πανὶ τὸν Ἠχοῦς ἔρωτα, καὶ μὴν καὶ κατειργάσατο καὶ εἰς τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτόν, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς μορφῆς αἰσχρὸς καὶ ἀνέραστος φαίνοιτο.

I cannot provide an RE entry for Axheilos, because there isn't one.

• Pindar (fr. 169a), the earliest literary reference to the labour,^[1] is missing from the sources.

Sources:

• Ovid Met. 9.194-96 is missing (and also missing from 'other sources')
• Seneca, Agamemnon 850 ff: the relevant verses are 842–847, not '850 and following'.
• includes Ptolemy Hephaestion 5. This is a source which reports that Abderos was killed by Theseus for reporting to him the death of Herakles. It's one of the only mentions of Abderos that has nothing to do with Diomedes. English translation here, Greek can be found here.

NB: I have not gone through this whole entry. The fact that only one issue is listed here does not mean it is the only one.

• in the gallery at the bottom T22.1 is labelled as Hephaistos as "Hephaestus, Creation of Pandora". The figure shown is Epimetheus. (he is correctly identified as Epimetheus on the page about the vase in question).

Introduction section:

• "The Hesperides were also the keepers of other treasures of the gods. Perseus obtained from them the artifacts he needed to slay the Gorgon Medousa (Medusa).": There is no ancient source that supports this. The nymphs who have these artefacts are not identified. They are just called nymphs.This claim had to be removed from the English pages about the Hesperides and the page on Perseus.
• "The three nymphs": The number of nymphs varies from 3–7.
• "and their glowing, golden apples": I don't know why he thinks the apples glow. If you search the page for 'glow' all three mentions are in Atsma's own writing – not a single quote supports it. I have yet to find a source that suggests they glow. Hesiod calls them 'χρύσεα καλὰ' ('golden, beautiful', Theog. 216).
• "were regarded as the source of the golden light of sunset": I do not know where he got this from. This is definitely someone's synthesis, based on the meanings of some of their names, rather than on any surviving mythological tradition. Could be Atsma's, could be something he found elsewhere. But it's certainly not from ancient sources and is not a fact.

Family of the Hesperides

• "NYX (no father) (Hesiod Theogony 215):" should be 214–5. This had to be corrected on the English page about the Hesperides.
• "EREBOS & NYX (Hyginus Pref, Cicero De Natura Deorum 3.17)": Both references wrong: the Pref, (or even Preface) is not a book. It is the title Mary Grant gives to the first section of the Fabulae in her translation. It is not universally referred to as the preface. Smith and Trzaskoma refer to this section as the Theogony in their edition, for example. Correctly referencing the Fabulae involves mentioning the Fabulae. If you want to refer to a title part that is unique to a translator then you need to tell people who the translator is in your reference. The Cicero reference is also incorrect. The relevant passage in De Natura Deorum is 3.44. The Cicero reference had to be corrected on the French page about the Hesperides.
• "ATLAS (Pherecydes Frag, Hyginus Astronomica 2.3)": There are multiple issues here. Firstly: more than one fragment of Pherekydes exists. This citation does not tell the user where to find the fragment in question. Secondly: there is no Pherekydes fragment that says they are the daughters of Atlas. In Fragment 16d (Fowler) Pherekydes gives the parents of the Hesperides as Zeus and Themis.^[2] Amusingly Hyginus' Astronomica 2.3 is the source of a Pherekydes fragment, but as one can surmise from there being no Pherekydes fragment saying that Atlas is the father of the Hesperides, the Astronomica passage being quoted does not claim that Pherekydes called the Hesperides the daughters of Atlas. The fragment mentions daughters of Atlas who keep stealing the golden apples. It does not name them. Translation here. Atlas had many daughters – among them the Hyades and Pleiades as well as the Hesperides. One cannot assume that a reference to the daughters of Atlas is a reference to the Hesperides. This had to be corrected on the English page about the Hesperides. This had to be corrected on the Spanish page about the Hesperides.
• "HESPEROS (Scholiast on Euripides Hippolytus)": This is an incomplete reference. The Hippolytus is an entire play. References to scholia should include the verse/line number which the scholium in question relates to. I am pretty sure that the text Atsma is actually referring here to the Pherekydes fragment (which would make the full reference for this 'ad Hippolytus 742'), and that he has mixed up his source for Hesperos (which is actually Servius – see below) and the source for Zeus and Themis (which would be Pherekydes – see above) This had to be corrected on the Spanish page about the Hesperides.
• "ZEUS & THEMIS (Servius on Virgil's Aeneid 4.484)": wrong attribution. This is the genealogy given by Pherekydes (16d in Fowler). Servius commentary gives both Atlas and Hesperos as options (Atlantis sive Hesperi filiae 4.484). This had to be corrected on the Spanish page about the Hesperides.
• "AIGLE, ERYTHEIA, HESPERETHOOSA (Hesiod Doubtful Frag 3)": Firstly, no translator name is provided. Secondly, this is not a useful citation. The numbering of a fragment can change between different collections of texts. Generally scholars indicate which system they are using by including the name of the editor or the name of the volume. Without this information "Doubtful Frag 3" is a useless reference. In the Loeb edition (trans. Evelyn-White) Atsma's "fragment 3" is not the correct fragment. Fragment 5 is the correct fragment. In Merkelbach & West it is Fragment 360.
• "AIGLE, ERYTHEIS, HESPERIE, ARETHOUSA (Apollodoros 2.113)" absence of name of translator renders this idiosyncratic reference useless (see section above on Apollodorus references). Reference should be 2.5.11. Names should be: Aegle/Aigle, Erythia (Ἐρύθεια), Hesperia (Ἑσπερία), Arethousa. (Apollodorus here)
• [1.3] "AIGLE, ERYTHEIS, HESPERE (Apollonius Rhodius 4.1390)": Incorrect reference. Should be 4.1427–8. This had to be corrected on the Spanish page about the Hesperides.
• "AIGLE, HESPERIE, AERIKA (Hyginus Preface)": I have already explained the problem with the Hyginus references. Correctly referencing the Fabulae involves mentioning the Fabulae. See below re: A/aerica. Aerika here is a spelling mistake .
• "ASTEROPE, KHRYSOTHEMIS, LIPARA (Vase Painting N14.1)": This reference is useless. No one would be able to find the correct vase based on this information. It is also missing a name (Hygieia). The vase in question is the Meidias Hydria (Museum No. 1772,0320.30.+ = BM Vases E224).
• Missing: two other vases that also depict the Hesperides with named figures on them. One of them is even also in the British Museum (1873,0111.6 = BM Vases E772). There's also a lekythos by Asteas depicting and naming them.^[3]
• "[1.1] EURYTION (Stesichorus Geryoneis Frag S8)": A responsible citation would acknowledge that this is an interpretation of a very fragmentary text, rather than definitely what it says. It would perhaps even provide a source for the interpretation. In this instance I suspect it is Campbell, who edited the Loeb book that contains this fragment, and suggests that the relevant verses could refer to Eurytion and Erytheia.

Quotes section:

• "Hesiod, Doubtful Frag 3 (from Servius on Vergil's Aeneid 4. 484) :" See above regarding incorrect reference for fragments of Hesiod. I do not know what edition this fragment is from. Adding the source for the fragment makes it more useful, but different manuscript traditions have differences for this scholium. Those most readily available online don't use the version quoted here, so even the reader who knows Latin might be puzzled by the difference between what they can find in the Servius and what is presented here.
• "Pseudo-Hyginus, Preface (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.) :" The preface is not a book. it is the preface to the Fabulae. Citing it correctly involves citing the Fabulae. The quote that follows is worse of a mess than usual when it comes to Atsma inserting things into translations. Grant's translation itself switches between English versions of names when those names are concepts/normal nouns (Sleep, Dreams, Love) but does not do that when the names are not obviously such (Lysimeles, Epiphron). Atsma wants to have it both ways for all names, and also chucks the Greek in sometimes, too. Grant's own text does sometimes inserts words in parentheses: e.g. "From Mist (was born) Chaos;". That means that when Atsma chooses to provide his own insertions using parentheses the reader has no way of knowing from his own page what are his additions, and what comes from Grant – as an example: Grant's actual text is: "Dreams, Love — that is, Lysimeles, Epiphron, Porphyrion," versus Atsma's: "Somnia (Dreams) [Oneiroi], Amor (Love)--that is Lysimeles, Epiphron (Prudence), Porphyrion". Atsma's "quotation" ends with 'the Hesperides Aegle, Hesperie and Aerica." [N.B. Aerica is an adjective not a name, literally "aerial."]' (not that names being adjectives usually bothers Atsma...) The curious thing is that Grant did not capitalise aerica. To misattribute the capitalisation to Grant and then immediately append a note saying that this is not the proper noun you yourself have turned it into is a disservice to the translator whose work you are using. (In any case, Grant's text is also an interpretation of the manuscript. Smith and Trzaskoma, for example, give the final name as Erythea (following Muncker's Erythia, which matches the third name from the Hesiod fragment preserved in Servius).^[4]

II. DAUGHTERS OF ATLAS

• "Pseudo-Hyginus, Astronomica 2. 3 (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.)": This quote does not mention the Hesperides. Atsma inserts them into the translation. They are not there in the source material. The quote mentions daughters of Atlas who steal apples. He simply assumes they are the Hesperides. The claim that the Hesperides sometimes stole apples had to be corrected on the English page about the Hesperides.

CHILDREN OF THE HESPERIDES

• This section states as fact what is currently only speculation due to the fragmentary nature of the material.

"Hesperides Goddesses of Evening and Sunsets"

• "goddesses of Evening and sunsets": Atsma does not provide a source, primary or secondary, for why we should interpret the Hesperides as "goddesses of evening and sunsets". Some of their names, as well as their group name are certainly words for, or related to words for, 'evening'. This in and of itself is not grounds for declaring that X was the goddess of something. (What should we even make of such a designation?)
• "The golden glow of these apples was surely envisaged as the source of sunsets.": as above: this is clearly someone's speculation. At least this time the wording makes it more clear that it is speculation. I don't know a scholarly source that suggests this. I do not know why he thinks the apples glow. There is no ancient source that describes them as glowing.

"HESPERIDES HERALDS OF THE BRIDAL NIGHT"

• "The Hesperides, as goddesses of evening, were also the heralds of the bridal night." No source supports this claim.
• "Quintus Smyrnaeus, Fall of Troy 4. 128 ff (trans. Way) (Greek epic C4th A.D.)": This quote does not mention the Hesperides. Atsma has simply inserted the word as a gloss in the middle of Way's translation.
• Nonnus: As an instance of 'this source mentions these figures' then sure, list Nonnus. But if the purpose here is specifically to support the claim that the Hesperides were thought of as "Heralds of the bridal night" and both of the quotes that actually mention the Hesperides are from Nonnus, you need to reassess whether you actually have good evidence for this claim. Atsma also inserts his own gloss into the middle of the quote, turning 'golden fruits' into just 'apples'. There's no reason to do this. He also glosses Eeosphoros as "[the Star Venus]". Whilst it is literally true that the "morning star" and "evening star" are actually the planet Venus, that is not what Nonnus is referring to here. He is referring to the figure Eosphoros. This gloss is misleading.

It is certainly very curious that in the wealth of literature on marriage in antiquity, everyone has neglected to mention this role of the Hesperides...

"HESPERIDES & THE BRIDAL APPLES OF HERA"

• "Euripides, Hippolytus 742 ff (trans. Vellacott) (Greek tragedy C5th B.C.)": This quote does not mention the Hesperides in any role.
• "Pseudo-Hyginus, Astronomica 2. 3 (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.)": as above, this quote does not mention the Hesperides. Atmas simply inserts the word. As above, this caused issues on the wikipedia page about the Hesperides.

"HESPERIDES, PERSEUS & THE TREASURES OF THE GODS"

• "Hesiod, Theogony 270 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or C7th B.C.)": This quote does not say that the Hesperides kept any treasures.
• "Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 38 - 39 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.)": This quote does not mention the Hesperides. Atsma has simply inserted it as a gloss into the text. Unusually for Atsma his insertion has a note of caution – "probably the Hesperides".
• "Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 46": This quote does not mention the Hesperides.
• "Pausanias, Description of Greece 3. 17. 3 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.)": By this point I am confident you can guess what this quote does not contain.

"HERACLES & THE GOLDEN APPLES OF THE HESPERIDES"

• "Upon completion of the task Athene returned the apples": Strangely Atsma fails to provide the citation for his. 'Strange' because the source is Apollodorus (2.5.11), who he does cite in this very section. He just... misses most of it out.
• "to their garden in the west.": Atsma then literally provides two quotes suggesting the garden is in the north. It is certainly true that the garden is usually located in the west. It would perhaps be sensible here to acknowledge the variant the quotes are about to show.
• "Aeschylus, Fragment 109 Prometheus Unbound (from Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics 6. 17. 1) (trans. Weir Smyth) (Greek tragedy C5th B.C.): "[Prometheus directs Herakles west during his quest for the golden apples of the Hesperides :] ‘Follow this straight road; and, first of all, thou shalt come to the Boreades (North-Winds)" Atsma's gloss here is that Prometheus is directing Heracles west. The quote suggests he is actually directing Heracles go north.
• "Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 113- 114 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.):" This quote says that the apples were not in Libya as some claim, but among the Hyperboreans. The Hyperboreans were believed to live in the far north.
• "Pausanias, Description of Greece 5. 11. 6 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.):" The scene described is the labour involving Atlas. The Hesperides are depicted elsewhere, but this does not show the labour of Heracles.
• "Virgil, Aeneid 4. 480 (trans. Fairclough) (Roman epic C1st B.C.)": This quote does not mention Heracles.

"THE GOLDEN APPLES IDENTIFIED WITH VARIOUS FRUIT"

• "Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 3. 84b": This quote identifies the apples as apples.
• "Hesiod, Theogony 744 ff:" This quote does not mention the Hesperides. Atsma simply asserts it as a reading of the phrase "In front of Atlas". the phrase "In front of Atlas" does not appear in the quote. Atsma has inserted his gloss in the incorrect place: "There [at the ends of the earth] stands the awful home of murky Nyx (Night) wrapped in dark clouds. In front of it [Atlas] the son of Iapetos..." The "it" is the home of Nyx. Atlas is standing in front of it. The referent for Atlas is not "it" but "son of Iapetos".

"NAMES OF THE HESPERIDES"

• This table contains only two sources, which are not even identified. This, despite the fact that Atsma himself lists five sources in the section which also lists names of the Hesperides. That list itself was missing two further sources.

• "THE HYADES were nymphs of the five stars of the constellation Hyades": They were not nymphs of the constellation. They are in some accounts catasterised. That is not the same as being a "nymph of" the stars.
• translation of the names: "Rainy Ones (hyô, hyetos)". This was certainly an ancient etymology, but not the only one, and the currently scholarly opinion is that the name cannot come from rain: the vowel length is wrong.^[5] The name comes instead from hŷs (swine).^[6]
• "[1.2] ATLAS & AITHRA (Musaeus Frag, Hyginus Astronomica 2.21, Ovid Fasti 5.164)". "Museus Frag" is a useless reference. A correct reference would involve a fragment number and details about what reference system is being used. e.g. 'Museus fr. 88 VI Bernabé p.46–7'. Astronomica 2.21 is a duplicate reference. It is the source of the Museus fragment. It is also incomplete. Should be 2.21.4. Atsma repeats this mistake every time this passage is referenced.
• "[2.1] HYAS & BOIOTIA (Hyginus Astronomica 2.21)": Reference is incomplete. Should be 2.21.4.
• "NAMES": This in notable in its incompleteness. There are at least six sources which provide names for some of the Hyades. Hyginus alone provides three separate lists in the Fabulae, yet Atsma has only included one of them here (he includes the names given at 192, but misses those given at 182).
• the table of names: Although other sources are listed above this, including several which give names of the Hyades, a table labelled "names of the Hyades" is also provided. The table does not make clear which source these names come from, and provides no rationale for why this source and no others is used.

I'm going to ignore everything in the introduction because it is all just made up. The word literally just means water. Randomly capitalising words as a means of inventing Greek deities is bad scholarship. Note the absence of an encyclopaedia section for this figure. That is because there is no encyclopaedia that lists this figure, because he is made up. Let's just get to Atsma's sources.

• The first quote is from Homer. It is from the Iliad: "The ends of the generous earth on a visit to Okeanos, whence the gods have risen, and Tethys our mother." You will notice this quote does not mention Hydros (or his imaginary counterpart Thesis). That is because it is not about Hydros or Thesis. Atsma appends the claim: "[N.B. The Orphics developed this concept into the figures of Hydros and Thesis.]" Even by his own account, this quote does not provide any evidence of the existence of Hydros. He acknowledges that this is a quote about Okeanos and Tethys. He's just priming the audience to accept that sometimes when they read the words "Okeanos" and "Tethys" they should understand them to refer to two other, different gods. He provides no evidence for this. No scholarship, no supporting argument, nothing.
• "Orphica, Theogonies Fragment 54 (from Damascius) (trans. West) (Greek hymns C3rd A.D. - C2nd B.C.)": Atsma here is lying about West's translation. Here is Atsma's version:

"Originally there was Hydros (Water), he [Orpheus] says, and Mud, from which Ge (Gaea, the Earth) solidified : he posits these two as first principles, water and earth . . . The one before the two [Thesis], however, he leaves unexpressed, his very silence being an intimation of its ineffable nature. The third principle after the two was engendered by these--Ge (Earth) and Hydros (Water)...

The capitalisation of Hydros and Mud are Atsma's insertion. West does not capitalise them. West does not use the word "Hydros". He just writes "water" and "mud". West does not supply "Thesis" for the "unexpressed" "one before the two". Atsma just asserts that it is Thesis. No scholar supports this reading. It is standard practice to acknowledge if you have edited something you are presenting as a quote. Atsma does not. West's text can be found here. West certainly makes no mention Hydros in his comment on the fragment.^[7] In fact, Hydros does not even appear as an entry in the index of the book in question. Which would certainly be a curious omission by West, were Hydros actually to exist. West spends 8 pages discussing the details of the water and the mud. Not once does he suggest that it should be understood to mean that there is a god called "Hydros". The Greek text that West is using is that of Kern. As you can see (=Fr. 54) Kern does not capitalise these words either.

• Orphica, Theogonies Fragment 57 (from Athenogoras): Atsma does exactly the same thing again here. He takes a translation of a passage and edits it without acknowledging his changes. West does not use the word "Hydros". He does not capitalise the word "Water". He does not gloss Tethys as "Thesis". West's actual text can be found here. Kern's text is here (=fr 57) Note that neither of them transform "Tethys" into Atsma's "Thesis".
• Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 1. 503 ff (trans. Rieu) (Greek epic C3rd B.C.): This quote is just Atsma inserting words into a passage from Apollonius. The translation does not contain "[Ouranos the Sky?]" or "[Gaia the Earth?]" or "[Hydros the Waters?]". Apollonius uses the words: Ophion, Eurynome, Okeanos. That is what the text says.
• Nonnus, Dionysiaca 23. 280 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.): This passage also does not mention "Hydros". Atsma is just claiming that the gods Nonnus does mention – the same gods Homer mentions – Okeanos and Tethys are "counterparts of the Orphic Hydros and Thesis".

All that Atsma has done throughout this page is take a quote that does not mention Hydros and pretend that it does. Often by very disingenuously inserting the word into the text in a way that might lead the reader to think that West himself translated it that way.

Pages for this non-existent figure currently exist on the wikipedia pages for seven different languages: Catalan, Spanish, French, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, and Portuguese. It has been deleted from German wikipedia

• "She was probably a goddess of the violent storm waves generated by her husband." There is no source to support this.This had to be removed from the German wikipedia page on Kymopoleia
• The parents are given as Poseidon and Amphitrite, with Hesiod's Theogony cited as the source. Next to the parentage the citations given are to Theog. 817 and 240 (in the quotes section the latter verse number is incorrectly given as 140). Amphitrite is not listed as the mother in either of these quotes.This had to be removed from the German wikipedia page on Kymopoleia
• "Alternate names:" Kymatolege is claimed to be an alternate name for Kymopoleia. No source is offered for this. It is simply asserted as fact.
• quotes: Astma appends "[N.B. Kymatolege is named in connection with the Nereides but was not numbered amongst them. She was probably Kymopoleia, daughter of Amphitrite, who occurs later in Hesiod.]" to the end of the quote of Theog. 240. In this quote Kymatolege and Amphitrite are both listed as daughters of Nereus and Doris. This is perhaps not obvious from the quote, because Astma has entirely removed it from its context: it is literally in the middle of a catalogue of the daughters of Nereus and Doris. There is no reason at all to think that Kmyatolege alone out of this entire list was not a daughter of Nereus and Doris. Given that Kymopoleia is indeed named as a daughter of Poseidon at 817, whilst Kymatolege is named within the same poem as a daughter of Nereus, there is no justification for claiming that the latter is simply a different name for the former.

For those interested, there is an actual source for Poseidon and Amphitrite as the parents for Kymopoleia. It's Tzetzes' Theogony (published here), where they are given as the parents of Kymopoleia and Triton (referred to as Εὐρυβίης, which is used as an epithet of Triton in Hes. Theog. 931). The lines of Tzetzes in question (332–5):

ὁ Ποσειδῶν δὲ τοῠ Διὸς ὁ ἀδελφὸς πρὸς γάμον
 τὴν Ἀμφιτρίτην ἐσχεκώς, Ὠκεανοῠ τὴν παῐδα,
 τὴν Εὐρυβίην ἔτεκε κληροῠχον τῆς θαλάσσης,
 σὺν ταυτῃ Κυμοπόλειαν, ἢ εἶπον ἀνωτέρω.

The RE entry on Kymopoleia is here. There is no entry for Kymatolege.

Introduction section

• "was the goddess of the dangers of the sea and, more specifically, of sea-monsters, whales and large sharks". Atsma likes gods in Greek and Roman myth to be gods of things, and thus tries to provide things for gods to be gods of. There is no ancient source that supports this claim. I have yet to find a modern scholar to support this claim.
• "sailor-devouring Skylla (crab)" Skylla does not mean 'crab'. The etymology does not stem from a word for 'crab'. She is also not a crab, so I do not know why Atsma wrote this. On his page about Skylla he has a less absurd etymology, ('rend, tear', from σκύλλω) though Beekes and Frisk suggest that it is related to 'σκύλαξ', ('puppy').^[8][9] Etymonline claims σκύλαξ comes from σκύλλω (given in the infinitive form), but neither Beekes nor Frisk mention it in relation to σκύλλω. In this instance I'd say Beekes and Frisk outweigh Etymonline. I'd call this a forgivable error, given that there is an actual etymological dictionary with this etymology. I would note, however, that Atsma does not cite it (that could be because he didn't use it, and only incidentally has the same etymology, but it's a problem in general that he never cites sources for the claims he makes about what names mean).
• "As the mother of Skylla Keto was also named (Crataeis, of the Rocks), Lamia (the Shark) and Trienos (the Thrice). The last title appears to equate her with the thrice-swallowing whirlpool-monster Kharybdis (Charybdis). Krataiis was also identified or confused with the goddess Hekate (Hecate), a divinity whose power extended over the sea."
  • Crataeis: This claim is simply asserted. There is not a single source that claims that anyone in antiquity "equated" Keto with Krataiis. Atsma has decided this must be the case. I have yet to decipher why. There is no overlap in their offspring. This claim had to be removed from the English page about Keto.
  • Lamia: This claim is simply asserted. There is not a single source that claims that anyone in antiquity "equated" Keto with Lamia. Atsma has decided this must be the case purely because some sources give Krataiis (who he has decided is Keto) as the mother of Skylla, and others give Lamia.
  • Trienos: This is a masculine name. Trienos is given in one source as the father of Skylla, and in zero sources as the mother. Trienos is thought to be a corruption of either Triton or Typhus, with the former being the more likely.^[10] Atsma has decided that Treinos must be another name for Krataiis (who he has decided is Keto) because he has decided that all figures described as the mother of Skylla must be identified as the same figure, and has failed to notice the gender of Trienos. This claim had to be removed from the English page about Keto.
  • If scholarly opinion is that this 'Trienos' is here a corruption, then it certainly cannot be used as proof of an equation of a figure to whom it is never applied with Kharybdis.

Encyclapaedia

• Encyclopaedia: Atsma has used the encyclopaedia entry for Crataeis. Presumably because there is no entry for Keto (or Ceto). Note that this entry about Crataeis does not mention Keto. This would be a curious omission, if there was evidence that they were the same figure. Other entries in which Keto is relevant do mention Keto. Here is a list of those entries.

Family & Names section

• "FAMILY OF CETO". Atsma does not have a page for Krataeii, presumably because he has decided that Keto and Krataiis are the same figure. He thus includes Krataiis' children (separate from Keto's) in this section. No justification is given for his conflation of Keto and Krataiis.
• ALTERNATE NAMES: See above.

Quotes section

• Hesiod, Theogony 270 & 332 ff : I don't know why Atsma has combined these two different sections into one quote. (The previous quote is also from the Theogony). For the previous quote Atsma provides the source of the translation: Evelyn-White. No translator is given for the combined 270 & 332 quote, which might lead the reader to reasonably assume that it is also Evelyn-White. It is not. (He uses this same quote on the page about Echidna, and there actively attributes it to Evelyn-White. It is definitely not Evelyn-White.) Evelyn-White's translation can be found here here. The translation used here is actually Lattimore. It can be found here.
• Hesiod, Theogony 270 & 332 ff : Atsma as usual inserts "Latin" spellings of the names into the text, without acknowledging that these come from him, rather than the actual translator. That is problematic enough, except in this instance he has actually explicitly edited the translation without acknowledging this. Lattimore has this: "... mothered the youngest of the deadly snakes, that one who at the gloomy great hidden limits of the Earth guards the all-golden apples". Atsma substitutes "...mothered the youngest of the deadly Drakones (Dragon-Serpents)... that one which guards the all-golden applies" spelling error aside, he is now attributing to Lattimore something that Lattimore did not write. i.e.: this is still a misattribution and generally considered bad practice. I don't know why he thought this was acceptable.
• Homer, Odyssey 12. 125 ff (trans. Shewring) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) : This quote does not mention Keto. Atsma appends a note at the end, "[N.B. Krataiis is probably Keto.]". No justification is given for this.
• Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca E7. 20 : This quote does not mention Keto. Atsma appends a note at the end, "[N.B. Krataiis is probably Keto.]". No justification is given for this.
• Pseudo-Hyginus, Preface (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.): "From Pontos (Sea) and Terra (Earth) [Gaia] [were born] : Thaumas, tusciuersus, Cepheus [probably a corruption of Ceto and Phorcys]..." The "Preface" is not a book. It is the title Grant gives to the first section of the Fabulae in her translation. It also has section numbers. This is section 7 & 9. NB: Atsma editorialises that there is probably a corruption of Ceto and Phorcys here, and for once scholars agree with him.
• Pliny: Atsma appends "[N.B. Keto was the goddess of sea-monsters and whales.]" No explanation or justification is given for this comment.

The RE entry on Keto is here. There is no mention of her being a goddess of whales or sharks, sea-monsters or even more vaguely dangers of the sea. There is no mention of Krataiis. The RE entry or Krataiis is here. It does not mention Keto.

• gives the "translation" of the name as "Large Shark (lamia)", stating that "her name is simply the ancient Greek word for a large, dangerous lone-shark".
• "She was probably identified with the sea-goddess Keto (Ceto) for both are described as the mother of the monstrous Skylla." There are two problems here. First: competing genealogies are a common feature of Greek myth. They are not, in and of themselves, proof that one figure was "identified" with another. No evidence is provided to support this claim. Secondly: Keto is not the mother of Skylla. (See above, Ceto). Atsma just made this up. And now here he is spreading his own personal conflations to include Lamia as well.
• Repeats the claim that Lamia had a son, Akheilos, who was turned into a shark by Aphrodite. The source given to support this claim is Ptolemy Hephaestion. The passage in question is about figures named Achilles, and the story related is that Aphrodite made him ugly. No sharks are involved. The Greek can be found here. The relevant section is this: Καὶ Διὸς καὶ Λαμίας Ἀχιλλέα φασὶ γενέσθαι τὸ κάλλος ἀμήχανον, ὃν καὶ ἐρίσαντα περὶ κάλλους νικῆσαι τοῦ Πανὸς κρίναντος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ἀφροδίτη νεμεσήσασα ἐμβάλλει Πανὶ τὸν Ἠχοῦς ἔρωτα, καὶ μὴν καὶ κατειργάσατο καὶ εἰς τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτόν, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς μορφῆς αἰσχρὸς καὶ ἀνέραστος φαίνοιτο.
• Claims that Lamia was turned into a shark by inserting into a quote from Bell's Women of Classical Mythology the gloss "[a shark]" next to the phrase "she became ugly with distorted features". Bell does not make that claim. None of the sources that Bell uses make that claim. No ancient source at all makes this claim. This seems to be an interpretative claim coming from Atsma himself, rather disingenuously inserted into Bell's quote in a way which could lead the reader to falsely assume that Bell had specified this elsewhere.

The RE entry, displaying an absence of shark-based information, is here (Lamia 1).

• "who accompanied the goddess Hekate in her night-time revels and hauntings.": This is an overstatement of the evidence we have. Alcman says simply that they are torch-bearers of Hekate. No more context is given. This claim had to be removed from the wikipedia page about the lampades (formerly at Lampad).
• "They were the divine counterparts of the Eleusinian celebrants who carried torches in the nocturnal procession of the Mysteries of Demeter.": That is Atsma's own speculation. There is no ancient source that claims this; there is no scholarly source that claims this. As far as I can tell, Atsma is the only one who claims this.
• quotes: "Ovid, Metamorphoses 5. 539 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.): "Orphne ... not the least famous of the Nymphae Avernales (Underworld Nymphs), bore once [a son] to Acheron in her dusky bower." This quote is about the Nymphae Avernales – Avernal Nymphs. There is no source that says that the Avernal nymphs are the Lampades, no source that mentions them with Hekate or as torch-bearers, no scholarship equates them. Atsma is the source of the conflation, and he does not acknowledge that this is merely his interpretation, nor provide any justification for it. This claim had to be removed from the French, Spanish and English wikipedia page about the lampades (English page formerly at Lampad) .
• quotes: Statius, Silvae 2. 4. 100 (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st A.D.): Haply by the pleasant silences of [the river] Lethe Nymphae Avernales (Underworld Nymphs) mingle and sport around him [a handsome boy who died young], ": This is a quote about the Avernal nymphs. There is no source that states that anyone thought they were the same as the Lampades. There is no source which associates the Avernal nymphs with torches. Also, the reference is incorrect. It should be 2.6.100–2. Atsma's insertion "[a handsome boy who died young]" notably omits the fact that the boy was a slave.

• "ZEUS (Homer Iliad 9.450, Quintus Smyrnaeus 10.300)": Iliad reference is wrong. Should be 9.502.
• The quote from the Iliad is described as Agamemnon speaking. The words actually belong to Phoenix. (the text. Speech begins at 434).

• "Nonnus, Dionysiaca 8. 110 ff": This reference is wrong. Should be 8.152ff.
• "According to the Orphics creation began with Hydros": Hydros is a figure Atsma has made up. There is no reference to such a figure in any literature, Orphic or otherwise.

• translation of name given: "acquired goddess". There is no consensus over what her name means, but the one offered here is not one offered by any scholarly source. Per Benjamin Hederich (1770): "Ihr Namen soll so viel heißen, als die zu allen laufende" ("her name supposedly means 'the one who runs to all'"), which he takes to refer to the universal nature and general pleasantness of sleep.^[11] Josef Korn, (aka Friedrich Nork), (1843) took it to mean "die von Allen veherte Göttin" ("the Goddess revered by all"), assuming that it originally referred to Aphrodite.^[12] Chantraine, Frisk, and Beekes have nothing. Etymonline has no entry for it.
• "She was probably the goddess of rest and relaxation." There is no source, ancient or modern, that supports this claim. No reasoning is provided.
• "Pasithea as the wife of Hypnos, god of sleep and dreams, may have been envisaged as the goddess of hallucinations and hallucinogenic drugs." This is an even more grandiose claim than the above, and again made without a single source to support it. No one thinks this. This claim had to be removed from the English, German and Polish pages about Pasithea.

The RE entry on Pasithea is Here (Pasithea 2)

NB: I have not gone through this whole entry. The fact that only one issue is listed here does not mean it is the only one.

• includes a quote from Fabulae 220 that starts: "When Cura (Core) [Persephone]". Cura, a Roman goddess/personification, is not Kore.

The RE entry on Cura is here.

• "TALOS was a giant, bronze automoton": There is no source that explicitly says he was a giant.^[13] Some translators insert that in their translations of Argonautica 4.1638 (including Rieu, which is the translation Atsma provides), but it's not there in the Greek in the lines in question. The phrase is 'Τάλως χάλκειος' (4.1638). 'χάλκειος' means 'bronze' or 'copper'. There is no word here that means 'giant'. This is a common mistake; more reliable sources that theoi.com have also made it.
• "He was eventually destroyed by Poeas or the Dioskouroi (Dioscuri) twins with the aid of the magic of the witch Medea as he tried to prevent the Argonauts from the landing on the island.": Normally I let it go when a short summary misses out variants and presents the situation as if there is only one definitive account, but if one chooses to acknowledge that there are at least two accounts here – Poeas and the Dioskouri killing him "with the aid of the magic of the witch Medea", then it is a strange choice indeed to leave out the account in the Argonautica in which Medea alone kills him, and two of the three variants from Apollodorus (1.9.26) in which Medea alone kills him. Note, the third account by Apollodorus – in which Poeas kills him – does not say that he had help from Medea. I do not know of a source that says Poeas killed Talos with the help of Medea. The encyclopaedia entry he uses reports all three versions of Medea alone killing him. Atsma has also included a variant in which he is killed by the Dioskouroi. This does not actually appear in any literary sources. This is based on three vases in which Talos appears, falling backwards into the arms of the Dioscouri (named as such on two of the vases, almost certainly them on the third).^[14] Note that the depiction is Talos falling backwards into their arms – not of them attacking him.
• Sources: excluding further artistic sources (Atsma generally ignores these – acknowledging the Dioskouroi variant is a rare exception), there are actually four sources that Atmas missed here – the quantity makes it worthy of mention: Sophocles (fr. 160 R & 161 R),^[15] probably-not-Plato (Minos, 320c.), Ibycus (fr. 32), and a second reference is the Suda (he lists the entry for sigma, 124 – cited as Sardanios gelos – but misses the mention at theta, 41).

• "THESIS was the primordial goddess of creation": We have no surviving ancient source that says this.
• "KHRONOS, ANANKE (by Hydros) ? (Orphic Fragment 54 & 57)." Orphic fragment 54 does not mention Thesis. 57 is about Thetis, not Thesis. Atsma has not demonstrated that Thetis here should be understood in 57 "Thesis". He has merely asserted it.
• Family section, "offspring: POROS, TEKMOR ? (Alcman Frag 5)". This fragment mentions Thetis, not Thesis. Greek here = (Calame 81). The Loeb is here, if you can access it. In the Loeb translation, Campbell has a footnote after the second usage of Thetis' name, saying 'Not the sea-goddess, but ‛Creation’ (= Attic θέσις cf. 20. 1 ἔσηκε, probably from this poem).' One wonders if this played some role in Atsma's thinking. Most others have accepted the name Thetis as referring to Thetis. Per Glenn Most: "Lobel was surprised that it was Thetis to whom the role of cosmogonic demiurge was assigned, and his surprise was shared by his first reviewers. But Thetis' appropriateness has been defended by reference to her name (cf. τίθημι) and to her status as a primordial goddess, most famous of the Nereids, and the structure and many details of the cosmogonic process described here have been clarified by the citation of numerous parallels (largely from non-Greek sources or from Greek texts far later than Alcman). Gradually the astonishment has subsided – indeed, Vernant has gone so far as to suggest that the only surprising thing about the choice of Thetis is that some scholars have been surprised by it."^[16] The weight of scholarship is on the side of Thetis here being Thetis.
• Family section, "offspring: POROS, PENIA (Plato calls Thesis Metis) (Plato Symposium 187)". Firstly, this is an incorrect reference. 187 is about music and harmony. The correct page is 203. However, this page also does not say what Atsma is claiming. The story says that Poros (Resource) is the son of Metis. Penia (Poverty) sleeps with Poros and they produce Eros. The text does not say that Penia is a child of Metis. Furthermore, clicking the names Poros and Penia takes the reader to the pages on Chronos and Ananke respectively. These are not the same figures. Atsma has not demonstrated that Plato's reference to Metis is actually a reference to Thesis, that the reference to Poros is actually a reference to Chronos, or that the reference to Penia is actually a reference to Ananke. He has simply asserted these things.
• The encyclopedia entry provided is for Metis. The entry itself does not say that Metis is sometimes called Thesis. It does not mention Thesis at all. Atsma has not demonstrated that Metis is Thesis. He has simply asserted it. It is telling that Atsma is having to use an entry for Metis, rather than one for Thesis. This is because there is no entry for Thesis.
• The Iliad quote (14. 200 ff.) does not mention Thesis. It is about Tethys. Atsma again asserts without evidence that Tethys is Thesis, because Tethys is a primordial creator. Then he uses a quote about Tethys to support the existence of a figure called Thesis. This is a logical fallacy.
• The Alcman quote: once again, Atsma glosses things in the quote in a way that does not make it wholly clear that the "[Khronos?]" and "[Ananke?]" glosses are his own insertion, rather than that of the translator (Campbell).
• "[Plato employs some of Alkman's Theogony in a fable :]". That is absolutely not a substantiated claim. Plato uses an allegory that happens to also involve the word Poros. That is all that Alcman and Plato have in common. (Remember: Plato uses Metis, Alcman uses Thetis, neither use Thesis.) I have yet to find a single scholar who could be used to support the idea that Plato's Poros has anything to do with Alcman's.
• The Orphica fragment 54 quote: This quote is actually edited, without any acknowledgement that Atsma has changed anything at all. All capitalisations for water, mud, and earth are Atsma's insertion (as is glossing water as 'Hydros' and inserting the name of Thesis here: " The one before the two [Thesis], however, he leaves unexpressed". Absolutely no name is given here. It is standard practice to acknowledge if you have edited something you are presenting as a quote. Atsma does not. West's text can be found here. We do not know what the 'one before the two' is named because it is left unexpressed. West certainly makes no mention of a Thesis (or indeed Thetis or Metis) in his comment on the fragment.^[17] In fact, Thesis does not even appear as an entry in the index of the book in question. Which would certainly be a curious omission by West, were Thesis actually to exist.
• The Nonnus quote: is set up with a comment from that ""[Nonnus represents Okeanos and Tethys (i.e. as Thesis) as the primordial gods of creation, in the manner of Homer and the Orphics]". Nonnus follows Homer in giving Okeanos and Tethys. He does not write Thesis. No justification is offered for interpreting Nonnus as meaning Thesis rather than Tethys.
• Sources: Ovid is listed as a source despite not being used as a source.

I cannot provide a link to the RE article on Thesis because there isn't one. Because she doesn't exist. This figure has been made up by Atsma. Every source refers to either Thetis or Metis, and it is only by boldly claiming without evidence that actually these names are being used to refer to a mysterious "Thesis" that any evidence of her existence can be generated.

Pages for this non-existent figure currently exist on the wikipedia pages for seven different languages: Catalan, Spanish, Basque, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese and Serbian.

• The page correctly labels the figure on the left as Eurynoe. At the bottom of the page there are links to other articles. The link for Eurynoe takes you to the page for Eurynome. They are not the same figure.