Jump to content

Talk:The Case of the Animals versus Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This article is actually quite interesting, although the lead section is confusing and needs some clarification. The proposed hooks though are not up to scratch, although there might be a valid AFD angle to be found somewhere in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Could you please elaborate? What in the lead needs clarification? (And what might be a valid AFD angle, if not the most eyebrow-raising aspect of the story, which is its very premise!!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I see I misread the phrase "The longest entry in the Encyclopedia, The Case of the Animals versus Man" as the name of the book, which confused me. However, it still could use a rephrase so that it can't be misread IMO. Also, I think the lead could use a bit of expansion.
With regard to the proposed hooks above, ALT0 above is accurate but clunky. The other two alts are simply not accurate, as they are passing off fictional events as real. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One might perhaps go with something like:

- the deception there would be that most people will assume it's a Christian epistle since that is the usual context of the word "epistle". Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed on AFD one had more leeway to do things like pass off fictional events as real Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me the interesting and humorous bit is the fact that talking animals (including a pig!) can quote the Qu'ran to great effect. Merely knowing that animals sued humans is a bit mild. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modified ALT2. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kingoflettuce, ALT2 would I think work fine as a standard quirky, but as there is no element of deception in it, it doesn't really suit as an AFD hook in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps a Ramadan hook then :D Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main issue with all the hooks proposed so far is that they're technically all plot points. I'm not sure if the "hooks cannot be fully in-universe" criterion applies to epistles or religious writings, but if they do, all hooks proposed thus far would fail that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The criterion says If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. I don't know if epistles would count as a "work of fiction", but if the spirit of the guideline is to be followed, a hook would probably require actual real-world events; for example, a hook about its discovery, or analysis/responses to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "when the epistle was written", duh. Anyway it's obviously a work of fiction, so there's that. I think anything that doesn't say what the epistle is about would be rather boring. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the hook fact itself is interesting, it's just that hooks solely about plot are not allowed, and from what I recall, even adding a publication year is not a sufficient solution to making the hooks meet the criterion. For what it's worth, the original hook didn't actually have this issue since there's also focus on the author and it makes it clear that the hook information is fictional. Perhaps a revision of that original hook would solve the concerns about the real-world criterion, something like:
ALT4 ... that in the 960s, the Brethren of Purity wrote an epistle where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are sued by Quran-reading animals?
Or if a hook that's not about that plot point is desirable, another possible hook option could be based on the following quote: Writing in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, Richard C. Foltz found the work "unusual" and representing an argument for animal rights that was "striking for its exceptionality for the context of tenth-century Muslim society." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I'm thinking of giving this a full review, but for clarifications sake, am I allowed to do so given that I proposed ALT4, or should I be in the clear given that ALT4 is just a combination of ALT0 and ALT2 and doesn't introduce any new facts? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, since nothing has yet been reviewed, it would be you reviewing your own hook. So if you did review the article generally, someone else would need to review ALT4. It's up to you whether you proceed with the review and leave the hook reviewing to someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. For what it's worth, the article does meet requirements (it was promoted to GA status on time and is free from close paraphrasing). The main hook fact of the hooks proposed (the one about animals citing the Quran to sue humans) is cited inline, but since the sources are offline I am assuming good faith. A QPQ has been done. Given that I proposed ALT4 and per the comment above, I am ultimately leaving the final hook approval to another editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Great work on an interesting article. Although there isn't a source associated with the nomination per se, this source, given inline in the article, is sufficient to verify the hook. In terms of rule C6, it's a vague one to try to interpret. I couldn't find in the archives how this rule came about and what the rationale was, but I do generally agree with the approach taken in this previous discussion i.e. that the rule is there to prevent solely in-universe hooks that are unintelligible to a general audience. I would say that with this interpretation ALT4 is quite securely in line with this rule and I'd hate miss out on such an interesting hook with an overly strict interpretation. As such I'll go ahead and approve ALT4. --GGT (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Case of the Animals versus Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 08:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Very cool article! I will review over the weekend. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

  • Lead: is an epistle written by the Brethren of Purity I recommend is an Arabic epistle so readers who don't know who the Brethren of Purity are can quickly place the article in context.
  • For the second paragraph of Plot, I'm not sure including the Arabic translations of each animal name adds anything. I recommend removing them.
  • Images: Only one image, fair use rationale provided.
  • References: Spot checks conducted for #6, 8, and 21. No issues identified, I could not access the other sources.
  • The article reminded me of medieval debate poetry and Drakht-i Asurig, you could add those to the see also section if you would like.

Other than that I cannot think of anything you should do to improve the article, it is comprehensive and makes great use of a wide range of sources. Well done, I'm happy to pass as GA. Sorry I don't have more for you. If you are looking for extra work to do, I suppose this should have a place in list of rasa'il in the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity ;) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle

[edit]

Kingoflettuce, and Cerebellum as GA reviewer, is (Arabic) epistle the best translation of rasa'il?

The sources I've consulted say epistle, so that's what it is as far as I'm concerned. Be careful of OR! Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kingoflettuce, I believe a bit of OR is allowed on talk pages. I don't know Arabic myself, but hopefully it will be possible to find someone who does. TSventon (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gwern, you started the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity article, please could you advise? TSventon (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: the writings of the Brethren of Purity are, in point of fact, treatises (formal and systematic discourses on specific subjects), and this is one of the possible meanings of the Arabic word "risala" (plural "rasa'il"). However, the word also means "epistle", and even more generally it is the common Arabic word for "letter" ('what you send to someone': the Arabic root r-s-l means 'sending'). Kingoflettuce is right that in reference to the writings of the Brethren of Purity, scholars almost universally speak of their "epistles". This seems to be conventional, and there is no doubt that Wikipedia should follow scholarly convention in this regard. It's no problem to say, as Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity does, that it consists of "52 treatises", or to descriptively refer to one of them as a "treatise", but when it comes to translating "rasa'il", or to speaking about the Brethren's writings in general terms, it really should be "epistles". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma:, thank you, that makes things clearer. Could you add the plural to Risala, I presume that wouldn't need a reference? It would also be useful to mention rasa'il in epistle, but that would need a source. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, updating the Risala disambiguation page was a lot more work than I anticipated, but consider it  Done. As for adding something to epistle, that would necessitate a source as you say, and indeed some broader context on epistolary writing in Arabic. Not really my thing, so I'll leave it at this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic title

[edit]

What is the title in (non-Romanized) Arabic? I tried to find translations of the title and came up with دادخواهی حیوانات نزد پادشاه پریان از ستم آدمیان from a Goodreads page, but I don't know if it's Arabic or Persian. Cmprince (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic title is في أصناف الحيوانات وعجائب هياكلها وغرائب أحوالها (very literal translation: "On the Classes of Animals, the Wonders of their Structures, and the Peculiarities of their Affairs"; somewhat less literal: "On the Classes of Animals, their Wonderful Structures, and their Peculiar Affairs"). I've added the Arabic script to the article. I think we should consider adding the English translation of the original title to the main body of the article too (though perhaps not in the lead, where it may be too long). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where alternate translations exist, I add them as a footnote to the title used in the lead (for example, Jeune Homme à sa/la fenêtre). I think MOS may prefer those in the text itself (MOS:ALTNAME), but for long titles, I find it distracting. Cmprince (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Case_of_the_Animals_versus_Man&oldid=1204158058"