Talk:The Ass in the Lion's Skin

The Ass in the Lion's Skin

I have deleted your para on the apparent reference to this fable in The Last Battle. As in so many additions to do with popular culture, the main interest is devoted to minutiae of the work discussed rather than to the subject of the article. The point that there may be a hidden reference here, and a political message, seems to fall foul of WP:IPC and in particular the Content section where the guidelines suggest that 'passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics, should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources.' Without a scholarly source to substantiate your claim, what you say will be counted as Original Research WP:OR. If there is such a trustworthy source, however, the application of the fable to 20th century politics would be significant. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're reading far too much into WP:IRC. We're not talking about "minutiae of the work discussed." We're talking about the influence of a relatively obscure fragment of Latin literature on a widely-known and culturally significant work of literature. C.S. Lewis is hardly a minor or insignificant author; the work is part of one of the best-known works of 20th Century literature; and the fable supplies the chief element of the plot. It is not a passing mention, or a mention at all; it is used as the primary driver of the plot, and WP:Useprimary makes quite clear that a novel is an acceptable source for its own contents. That does not constitute original research.

You're confounding two different issues here; notability of Lewis' use of the parable, and the allegorical significance of that motif. The work itself is notable and relevant to the article; it requires no further sourcing than the novel itself. The question of its interpretation should, indeed, have scholarly sourcing; but since scholarly mid-century literary criticism and analysis isn't the easiest thing to come by on the internet, it may take a few days to come up with it. That doesn't mean that the statement should simply be excised on completely irrelevant grounds such as WP:IRC. A notation that reliable sources are required would have been sufficient; in many articles such notices remain for months or years before reliable sources are added or the material excised. It certainly could have waited for a few days. But even if the interpretation of Lewis' use of the fable ultimately fails this test, his use of the fable is itself notable, relevant, and adequately sourced.

Moving this discussion to the article's talk page, which is where it really belongs. P Aculeius (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Having been called to task by other editors for my own use of primary sources in WP articles, I have become well versed in what is acceptable. I called in question first of all that the fable actually was being referred to in the episode you cited, but you have now established that. I also questioned that the fable was being given a political dimension, which your source did not support and I notice that you have silently withdrawn what would have been the most interesting point. Ms Linskoog only mentions the fable as the source of the idea of the episode; its development is (obviously) Lewis' invention and a retelling of the novel's plot at that point is off-topic in the context of this article. I have therefore edited down your paragraph and centred it more on the fable. The point you raise is an interesting one, not because Lewis is notable and Avianus 'relatively obscure', but because Lewis is a moralist and has given the popular motif an added dimension. Unfortunately, to have pointed this out would have been straying into unacceptable interpretation. Is there a source that comments on it, do you know? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I no more needed a secondary source stating that the motif was borrowed from Avianus than I would have needed one to justify including an episode in which an adventurer wakes a princess from a hundred-year sleep with a kiss under "Sleeping Beauty." If one episode is clearly and unambiguously derived from another, or from a common source, there is no need to find other sources that say so, any more than you need a source to attest that the sky is blue (which, if I recall, was an example of a self-evident fact not requiring a source in Wikipedia). I went to the trouble of digging through a host of largely irrelevant, narrowly-focused, and unreliable material on the internet (chiefly student essays, fan reviews, and religion-oriented blogs) searching for commentary on The Last Battle merely because you were determined to excise the reference altogether.

Reviewing the other uses of the fable in this article, I note that not one cites either Aesop or Avianus as a source, and it is exceedingly improbable that the non-European material is derived from those writers, unlike the use by C.S. Lewis, who was well-versed in Latin literature. Yet they have been included under this article because they are relevant, not because they can be shown to be derived from it; apparently C.S. Lewis is not merely trivial or cruft, as implied by the citation of WP:IPC implied; but subject to a different standard for inclusion than assorted folklore and proverbs that share less in common with the original fable (such as a goat in place of an ass, or the child of a lion and a jackal, who doesn't even find or wear a lion's skin), or political cartoons of the 19th century, which would seem to have less lasting relevance than the use of the fable in a work of literature.

The "overlong reference" I made by explaining how the fable was used to develop the plot of the novel, you still felt necessary to rewrite in the briefest possible manner, reducing a seven-sentence paragraph to four, of which two are required merely to associate the fable with the book, leaving only two sentences to describe the plot, of which one now replaces all specifics with, "the story then develops in a tragic direction"; an utterly vague and pointless description. Reducing a properly-written paragraph explaining the significance of the fable in context to a pile of mush, solely in order to save 366 bytes out of 6,194, seems wholly unjustified. I feel compelled to ask that you restore the paragraph as written. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The para was shortened because it violated WP:ROC. You have already provided a link to the novel, where there is a summary of its plot. It is otherwise not germane to an article about a particular fable. POV arguments about the novel's notability are neither here nor there.

Aesop cannot be cited because he left nothing in writing, but there is an earlier version than Avianus in Aphthonius and another collected by Chambery. Laura Gibbs cites a Jataka story as a parallel. I think you may be confusing discussion of a common folk motif with an argument that the story must have reached Asia from Europe, or vice versa, which is not claimed in the article. Take a look at the discussion at Lion's Share for coverage of this topic. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep changing the grounds on which you're basing your restrictive edits. First it was because C.S. Lewis is a minor use of the fable in pop culture that doesn't belong because it's a mere passing reference that threatens to overload the article with trivia or cruft WP:IPC. Then it's original research because I didn't cite a source linking the motif (a donkey wearing a lion's skin to fool or manipulate others) to its source WP:OR. Then you shorten a one-paragraph description by three sentences and replace the contents with the absurdity, "the story then develops in a tragic direction" because in your opinion the manner in which the motif is used to develop the plot violates Wikipedia's policy on relevance WP:ROC! It's become perfectly clear by now that you don't want C.S. Lewis mentioned in this article (having deleted all mention of the use on two separate occasions), that if his work is mentioned you intend to make sure it occupies the least possible amount of space, and that you're not willing to be reasonable or accommodate anyone else's point of view. You're shooting policies left and right to justify this behaviour. If you persist in this manner, I will have to refer this to arbitration. P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to draw attention to WP guidelines on key policies in no way betrays prejudice against C.S.Lewis. In assuming my bad faith, you transgress WP:GF. Furthermore, arbitration is only applied for as a last resort and administrators will look for evidence that you have attempted dialogue, rather than making wild accusations. There is also another preliminary step, where you can draw the attention of other editors to the talk page here. I can't find this forum with a Google search but you may know of its whereabouts. Please let me know if you do. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the paragraph in question in a way that will be acceptable to all. I hope we all agree that Lewis' use of the motif deserves mention, it's just a matter of finding the best way to do it. 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Pete unseth (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Pete has done a good job here in bringing this matter to a close, in what might have been a very quick edit (after the Linskoog source was provided). PA, be sure and raise issue if you re not satisfied with the outcome. Mz, I also perceive an over protectiveness here, but acknowledge it lead to a good outcome—the Linskoog citation, and inclusion of a clear reference by a philologist/literary psudo-classicist (as all Medieval and Renaissance scholars must be) to a best-selling, contemporary, popular work. Brave, everyone. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on future direction

As an outside reader, may I be so bold as to suggest: (i) that the article could benefit from the appearance of dates, even if rough, for sources of the various manifestations of the fable referred to, and (ii) that imparting structure to the article via sectioning may soon be worthwhile. These are in part raised because the appearance of the Buddhist version makes more ambiguous the relationship of the various paragraphs to the whole of the article. Thanks for all the effort. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)