Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog

Old content without a heading

This fable — or rather an earlier version of it, concerning a scorpion and a turtle — is to be found in the Baharistan (or Beharistan) of Jami (1414-1492). Whether or not it is original to that work, I don't know. Though often ascribed to Aesop (as indicated in the article), it is not in any edition of his fables that I have consulted.

Max Kappa 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The curator of an online Aesop collection says this story isn't in Aesop: http://mythfolklore.net/3043mythfolklore/reading/aesop/pages/15.htm I'll change 'attributed' to 'often mis-attributed'. BillMcGonigle 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cited that web page. --Steve Foerster (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A similar story appears in the Tractate Nedarim, a Talmudic treatise dating from about A.D. 200 or earlier:

We are told that Samuel once saw a frog carrying a scorpion on its back across a river, upon the opposite bank of which a man stood waiting ready to be stung. The sting proving fatal, so that the man died; upon which Samuel exclaimed, "Lord, they wait for Thy judgments this day: for all are Thy servants."*

The earliest appearance known to me of the scorpion-and-frog fable that is the subject of this article is in the film Mr Arkadin (1955), written and directed by Orson Welles and based on a novel that bears Welles's name but which in later years he denied having written and claimed never to have read. (It includes the fable, and was published in 1955, about the time of the film's release.) When asked by Peter Bogdanovich what the origin of the fable was, he answered: "Who knows? I heard it from an Arab."†

It seems probable that the scorpion-and-turtle fable mentioned above by my friend Max Kappa has at sometime been conflated with the Talmudic story.

* A Talmudic Miscellany (1880, compiled and translated by Paul Isaac Hershon), p. 12. Samuel is quoting Psalm 119: 91.

† This Is Orson Welles (1992, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum), p. 232.

alderbourne 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alderbourne, that’s fascinating! I’ve added a note in this edit.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph about Black Scorpion (which the author misnamed The Scorpion) has nothing to do with the topic. I'm cutting it. JDspeeder1 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this fable appears in the book The Game. --64.91.108.162 (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also seen a variation of this in the online RPG PlaneShift, called "Serpent and Eagle". The only variation (other than character changes) is that they fall instead of drowning. EricLarge (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Weeds

"In television" got to similar entries about Weeds season 2: make a choice or merge, please. Lacrymocéphale 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Another ending for The Scorpion and the Frog

The setting is the Jordan River.

When the frog asks the scorpion why he stung him, causing both of them to drown, the scorpion replies: "This is the Middle East."

Notapussycat (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The above is terrible, but in the roleplaying game Legend of the Five Rings there is a telling of this tale in the setting's mythology. The story is being told to someone who thinks they have heard it before, and they complain the whole time it is being told that they know what is coming. Finally the storyteller concludes the story by saying, "But Frog, I can swim."

I guess that's not very important, but it could be a pop culture reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.225.134 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor image

The image used in the article is a pretty poor "photoshop", putting the images of the scorpion and the frog next to each other as if the church door was referencing the story.

I suspect the story has been told and illustrated in old (PD) children's litterature. Isn't there any other image we could use? Personally, I think even separate images of a scorpion and a frog would be better than the current one. –Caesar (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear I have to agree, if the full image does not place these two together, then it is wp:synth to put them together for the article, at least, and outright fiction at worst. Too bad.Shajure (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

the image could be improved ... But it does add to the page. Is there a better image? Let's find one to replace it. 198.228.193.29 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is wp:synth, do not readd.Shajure (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It adds wp:original research - use the full image if you feel somehow it adds something useful... but... it doesn't.Shajure (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Might as well show any picture of a scorpion and any picture of a frog. —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The image was re-added under a misleading edit summary, and has been removed again. Please leave the image out.Shajure (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

Unless there is a substantial objection, I am going to sharply prune the pop culture section, and add a note in the code cautioning against bloat.Shajure (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Before expanding, please see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content - Shajure (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My sharp trimming was reverted. I have again cut away much content (and despite the editor's statement, have added nothing and care nothing for the items that remain, please cut freely). I added a banner, as well.Shajure (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it continues to be a trivia magnet, I cut the section. Perhaps another editor will choose to re-add, with an eye toward Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content.Shajure (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Section was added again, anon, I applied the editorial axe.Shajure (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And again.Shajure (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I support you in this, Shajure. Articles are for information about the fable, its history and interpretations. Unless modern allusions contribute to this, they count as trivial and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Recreating the section with a bogus name is still not encyclopedic. While it is certainly true that this multi-cultural tale is mentioned in many moves, TV shows, songs, children's books... that does not have anything to do with an encylopedia article. If there is *truly* a need for a list of uses of this general tale, perhaps an article "list of modern uses of xxxx" might be needed.User talk:Unfriend12 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're all idiots. The internet has plenty of room. Pop culture references are interesting - e.g. i wanted to know where i'd heard the fable mentioned before. At the moment it's a farcical situation where a reference is made to a past version of the article. 108.219.94.250 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"The internet has plenty of room" 💯

And not idiots: *pedants*. Can you really blame them? These few database entries, these bits of virtual estate they have some modicum of authority and influence over, are quite probably the only things over which they really have all that much direct control in this insane techno-industrial maelström we're all forced to live in. Like particles of dust caught in a hurricane: what else is there to do but jostle one another.

Good that there are talk pages here to compensate somewhat. The "This is the Middle East" variation someone mentioned above is brilliant, poetic, and gut-wrenchingly accurate and relevant. RZiman (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was recreated, but, again, these are junk magnets... we could list hundreds or even thousands... this is a popular, ancient story.Shajure (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancient? Not if you read the article. Anyway, WP:IPC is not a prohibition against "In popular culture" content, but a guideline for how to use it. There are a number of useful examples that should be here, but few are going to add them if it means setting up a fight with someone who doesn't want any. I'll agree that past lists are overly long and unsourced, but I'd suggest at least two examples are worthwhile: The Scorpion and the Toad, a 2006 TV show's episode with the name being a version of the legend due to one character continuing to trust another that he shouldn't; 2013's Love, Dishonor, Marry, Die, Cherish, Perish: A Novel by David Rakoff, where the story was retold on This American Life and Selected Shorts. Any sourced and notable example is useful and should be allowed. In fact, allowing them will allow you to focus on other matters. Calbaer (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked it up solely for pop culture references only to find the information USED TO BE AVAILABLE and has been removed. This is information that people want and you're keeping it from them for the brevity of an article online. And online space isn't exactly running put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrhG (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a Popular culture section because, before reading the above Talk, it seemed to be a section that was conspicuously missing - popular culture is mentioned in the opening sentences, yet there is nothing about it in the Article. This is not consistent. If there are "many references", what are they? Whilst I appreciate the arguments for brevity and avoiding trivia, citing a few example seems perfectly logical, of interest and worthy of inclusion (and clearly others are in agreement). However, I will refrain from recreating the section for the time being. What do others think? Manbooferie (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To repeat what has been mentioned at least twice in this thread, such a section should be governed by the advice at WP:IPC. WP is an encyclopedia: therefore mentions in it should be on-topic, have secondary or tertiary sources, and their significance explained. Neither of the items referenced in the former IPC section (a Soviet novel and an Israeli propaganda pamphlet) were examples of popular culture but might more usefully have been listed under "Cultural impact". The assertion in the lead might most usefully be supported by a reference that says as much, rather than by a mountain of unreferenced trivia contributed from anonymous accounts. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The section I added complies with the advice at WP:IPC. It is on-topic, has relevant sources and does not constitute a long list of trivia - it is or was two very short paragraphs with a couple of examples. To repeat, this seems a logical addition to justify the opening "many references" remark. I note that the section (or the remainder of it) has just been deleted. I fail to see why this section is so contentious and will recreate it. Manbooferie (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OR article tag... Is it still needed?

This is a small article and seems adequately sourced. Do we still need the article flag? If no one objects, I expect to drop the tag in a few days or when I next notice it.Shajure (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I felt the same way and did away with it. Foxyshadis^(talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is better we both perish"

I removed this bit:

There is also another variation [ref.1] [ref.2] in which the final words of the scorpion are "It is better we should both perish than that my enemy should live."

Because the Angelfire page is the only "real" source. But it doesn't have a date, not even a Last-Modified header (earliest Archive.org capture is March 2002), but without a reference, the author might as well have made it up.

The vast majority of the results for the Google search source (isn't there some WP policy against that?) almost literally echo back what this WP article says, and if you filter those out, the rest are copies of or references to the Angelfire webpage.

It piqued my curiosity because the alternative ending changes the meaning of the whole fable. In fact, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Of course if anyone has a proper source for this alternative ending, by all means put it back.

Addition: I also just noticed that the Angelfire story is about a **Fox** and a Scorpion, instead of a Frog. Now it even makes less sense, in my eyes. - User talk:Max Ijzersteen - appears to be the author of the above. User talk:Unfriend12 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

Did anyone notice that the image is a picture of a scorpion and a turtle? Maybe we could be a little more accurate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Renewed merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:RM is for moves, not mergers so we can't help you unfortunately. Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The Scorpion and the Frog → The Frog and the Mouse – 1.It is a comparatively recent variation of an old fable theme. Its origin has been attributed to Aesop in Europe, to the Indian Panchatantra, and to West Africa, without any reliable evidence. 2. A tendentious attempt to suggest continuity of the story of the scorpion and the frog from past variants is lifted from a previous attempt to merge this article with The Frog and the Mouse in which the very opposite is argued. 3. The article has acted in the past as a magnet for large amounts of trivia which have constantly had to be purged. The proposed merger would help quarantine it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A notice porposing a merge was posted on 4 June 2013. No response was received and the merge was carried out at the end of that month. This action was reversed without previous discussion in November 2013. The proposal to merge is therefore renewed here. The discussion should centre on why the unsatisfactory article here should be retained when there is already a section in The Frog and the Mouse which covers all the main (and verifiable) facts. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as is. The Scorpion and the Frog should have it's own article as it's a common, well-known fable. Persistent vandalism by IP's can be dealt with by having the page protected. This fable has been mentioned dozens of times in popular culture including notable films, television shows, and books. This version is far more notable than the Frog and the Mouse, which should be merged here. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, User:SW3 5DL sums it up nicely.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Scorpion and the Frog or The Weasel and the Woodpecker?

Unbelievable picture and story: http:// www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/ the-tale-of-the-weasel-and-woodpecker The Tale of the Weasel and the Woodpecker 82.171.6.217 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As the above is simply spam, having nothing to do with the project, I have broken the link.Shajure (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Goldsmith on scorpions

User:Lquilter's quotation from Malcolm was well spotted, and that from Goldsmith is interesting. I have changed it to something found nearer the start of his chapter, since it mentions an unoffending frog and mouse. The bit about it stinging itself to death was not so much about its "irascible nature" as about another common belief that a scorpion will commit suicide with its own sting.

If the intention of these additions is to undermine the finding of an academic study that there was no evidence for the story about the scorpion and the mouse before the 20th century, they come short of the mark. Malcolm merely provides a variation in a different story that is much older, while all the scorpion stories mentioned in the article are predicated on its natural characteristic. Even the oldest examples from Arab and Jewish sources only cite instances where divine intervention protects the ferrying creature. One wonders, therefore, how relevant the quotation from Goldsmith really is? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Attribution to Aesop

The section about being "misattributed" to Aesop seems to have disappeared. This attribution is so widespread (http://www.aesopfables.com/aesop4.html) that I hope someone will put it back. 173.48.47.101 (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I gave this its own section, in keeping with wp:talk. Please feel free to revert if this is not what you wanted. With that being said, we would need a source that says it is often attribbed... and it/another that says it predates the gathering into the collections collectively (haha) called Aesop's Fables.14:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

== Large addition of opinion ==

"Though the fable is recent, its outlook that certain natures cannot be reformed was common in ancient times, as in Aesop's fable of The Farmer and the Viper. Here the scorpion’s reply indicates that what is fundamentally vicious will not change." This is a bunch of wp:OR, and cited to a personal website, pretensiously using a journal citation. Unless there is support, I will promptly remove the whole thing, including the sideways reference.

"The Prisoner's Dilemma". The Ethical Spectacle. 1 (9). September 1995.Shajure (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture

I'm not sure if it's worthwhile listing all the references to this tale in movies and books. Firstly, it doesn't give much insight; and secondly, there are so many references that this list could get really long. Kurzon (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, listing every reference found on the internet wouldn't be worthwhile or of much interest. However, what's been created is currently a very short list of some well known films to illustrate the point (made in the Introduction) that the fable is very popular and mentioned in all sorts of media. If other editors add more films and they are deemed trivial or too obscure, there is always the option to delete them (if justified). I agree the films do not provide any "insight", but so what? That does not preclude them from being referenced. As other people have remarked, there is genuine interest in knowing this information so why censor it? The point is that such references to the fable exist and that many different writers/directors/journalists/politicians/speakers have thought the fable was important enough to incorporate into their films, stories, articles or other publications. Manbooferie (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Origins

Currently, the earliest known publication of this fable is the 1944 book. However, consulting various collections of fables I noticed that "Frog and Scorpion" is mentioned in The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, with those of Avian, Alfonso and Poggio, now again edited and induced by Joseph Jacobs - see page 231. It's an obscure mention that references (Auguste) Wagener. Might be worth further investigation... Manbooferie (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Manbooferie: I've looked through the book and this guy named Wagener was apparently a scholar of Indian and Greek fables. My guess is that he found "The Frog and the Scorpion" in an Indian text. Kurzon (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: The book by Wagener would appear to be Les Apologues De L’Inde et Les Apologues De La Grèce. The word 'scorpion' does not appear in the book, but instead there are two fables with a snake ("un serpent") and some frogs ("des grenouilles") (see p. 99). Apparently, in one fable the serpent is replaced by a hydra ("une hydre") which is either the tiny aquatic organism or the Hydra of Greek mythology. Seems plenty of scope for a story to develop about a scorpion on the back of a frog... Manbooferie (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll of course be aware that this is speculation and that this article is subject to WP:REF. Joseph Jacobs, cited by Kurzon, was notorious for unscholarly speculation and wrote over a century ago. No scholar takes his opinions seriously now. Nor will Wagener's be, who wrote even earlier. If Takeda Arata (2011) could not find an ancient source, free-lance attempts at trying to second-guess him are not likely to be acceptable here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know if Joseph Jacobs was “unscholarly” or not, but I note that the wikipedia article about him does not make any such criticism. Even if he is considered unscholarly by certain people, so what? This a Talk page and I’ll say what I like whether or not you find it “acceptable”. If you don't like it, ignore it. Manbooferie (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Manbooferie and Sweetpool50: Hi guys, I'm revisiting this lead. Even if Joseph Jacobs was not a reputable scholar, we're only talking about a footnote in his book (which reads "Wagener-Weber, No. 9 [Frog and Scorpion]). I'm trying to figure what that means. What does "Wagener-Weber, No. 9" mean? Did Wagener and Weber collaborate on a compendium of fables? Kurzon (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked up Auguste Wagener, and he studied ancient Greece. Perhaps he came across the fable in Greek. Kurzon (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I wondered whether the other scholar was the German Max Weber, but he would have been very young to be cited in a book published in 1889. Looking at the other works mentioned, I noticed that a couple seemed to refer to Jewish folklore, in which case the tale of the Frog and Scorpion mentioned there would most likely be the Near Eastern tales of Jewish and Arab origin that you have (unpardonably) deleted. The Jacobs note is all that I can find through Advanced Book Search. You'll need to locate his edition of Aesop and find which work he was referring to in the bibliography and then look at that. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I think it was Albrecht Friedrich Weber. They seem to have had a correspondence. Kurzon (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I found what the footnote was referring to: A page in Albrecht Weber's book Indische Studien. Apparently, it's about frogs and snakes, not scorpions. Jacobs made a mistake, it seems. Kurzon (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sweetpool50's reversions

I reverted some of Sweetpool50's reversions, but since he did them in good faith, he deserves an explanation.

I removed the stuff about the Babylonian Talmud and the Arab Sufi thing, because they don't seem to have a connection to The Scorpion and the Frog. They certainly don't teach the same moral. Scorpions and frogs are common characters in fables. I suspect (and yes this is my conjecture) that The Scorpion and the Frog is a variation of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. Someone changed the Tortoise to a Frog perhaps to emphasize the self-destructive nature of the scorpion.

I think we should actually read what the existing references actually say, because they do not necessarily validate the text of the article. For instance, the website by Ashliman simply recounts The Scorpion and the Tortoise, and we don't need this reference because we can reference the Anvaar Soheili, which is the original appearance of The Scorpion and the Tortoise. In a more general sense, while we must not do original research and instead cite sources, we do have to decide what sources are worth citing. So just because something is "properly referenced", doesn't necessarily make it valid.

I took Sweetpool50's criticism's to heart and reduced some of my conjectures. Kurzon (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of the conjecture may have been removed, but it was still there in the unnecessarily bloated Aesop section. The reason we put links in Wikipedia is so readers can check that article for more information. There is no need to repeat what is there in this article. Nor is there need to detail the stories of films and books where this fable is repeated. Look at WP:OFFTOPIC.

I see from Kurzon's Talk page that he has a history of edit-warring, which has been blanked rather than archived. It may be time to suggest that his edits be scrutinized once more. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Aesop bit, I want to add this line to the paragraph:

Many fables whose authors are unknown have been attributed to Aesop in a pseudonymic fashion (it's not certain Aesop even existed).

I think it's a salient point. A lot of people think this fable comes from Aesop, and they need to be told that it's only as a pseudonym and Aesop might in fact not have existed. That's something that should be said right here in the article because it's a key insight into this particular fable. It's not off-topic. Kurzon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No it should not. The article is only about the fable; what you want to add is available in the Aesop article to which you link and should not be repeated. Furthermore it's far from clear what you mean by "attributed to Aesop in a pseudonymic fashion" anyway. I have also corrected your style, which is often too colloquial for an encyclopedia. And you'll need a reference for the similarity of morals in other Aesop fables; stating a likeness is WP:OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: No, it's on topic. A lot of people seem to think that this fable was actually written by some guy named Aesop, so I want to refute that. A lot of people don't seem to understand that Aesop probably never existed, and that The Scorpion and the Frog was just attributed to him in a pseudonymic fashion (you know, like how cops used the alias "John Doe" for unidentified people). So I want to mention that in this article. In this article, I mentioned that this fable doesn't appear in any collection of Aesop's fable prior to the 20th century — I want to explain why. Kurzon (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask an Admin for a second opinion, then. You seem incapable of grasping Wikipedia guidelines. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that the stuff about Aesop's similar fables was there before I started working on this article. Why are you picking on me for them? Kurzon (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hood's book

@Mauro Lanari: I took a look at Hood's book, and he writes that "the story of the scorpion and the frog has been retold for thousands of years". That's incorrect. That doesn't make the reference invalid, of course, because his recounting of the fable is correct, but it does show that Hood is no scholar of literature. He's a psychologist. I think we should should favor scholars of literature (or at least people who know what they're talking about) whenever we can. Kurzon (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Yep, you're perfectly right. So what do you think of citing him as an influence of the fable in the psychological field? M.L. 84.223.141.149 (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mauro Lanari: Oh? That would be OK, I guess. What does he have to say about that? Kurzon (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: I'm thinking about it, but maybe I don't know... M.L. 84.223.141.149 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The 'missing' plot point

Nobody asks? What was 'in the deal' for the frog? Or, is this just a story about a good, charming con-man, like the serpent was to Eve? 66.217.5.196 (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In the precursor fable The Scorpion and the Turtle, the turtle and the scorpion are old friends. The turtle did not worry that his scorpion friend would sting him, and was suprised when the scorpion tried anyway. The frog's motive isn't explained. Everything in the fable is open to interpretation. Kurzon (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Orson Welles

Sweetpool50, could you explain what capacity he's speaking in then? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As director of the film that brought the fable into general public notice, as mentioned in the following section. Editorially, it would add clarity if that was the preceding section. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too short. Two sentences doesn't cut it at all, it needs to summarise the main points of the whole article.
• "This fable seems to have emerged in Russia in the early 20th century, although it was likely inspired by more ancient fables.
• I dislike captionless images, a brief description of the characters and their interaction might be useful here.
• I can't help but think that "vicious" isn't quite the word we need in this encyclopedic account.

I agree that vicious is probably not the right word. "Malevolent" seems a better fit. There is some rcent research would support that. They call it the "Malevolent Dark Core of Personality". https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180926110841.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.85.43 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The representation of the moral of the story is too shallow.

From the Swedish article: "The moral is that there are parts of one's nature that one cannot suppress, and that others cannot expect one to suppress."

It does not have to be a vicious intent. 195.112.86.84 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• I see this article is included as a "see also" in Mr. Arkadin but there's nothing explaining why. Not a major issue for this GAN but something ought to go into that article in the prose rather than just a context-less see also.
• And actually, it links to a subsection of The Frog and the Mouse which contains information about this story and its origins etc, which don't appear to be covered in this article.
• "The fable also appears..." this and following two sentences are unreferenced.
• "of The Scorpion and the Turtle. The Scorpion and the Turtle appears" repetitive.
• "c. 1500" non-breaking space.
• Consistency in italics and non-italics for the title of this. Interestingly I see that The Frog and the Mouse is not italicised...
• The Farmer and the Viper is also not italicised in our article.
• " interpretation. A common interpretation " repetitive.
• "vicious personalities" I'm not sure about this again.
• "Giancarlo Livraghi has" who he? Contextualise.
• " Freudian psychoanalysis" sea of blue.
• How does ref 21 source the claim? And in any case, is discogs reliable?
• "pp. 133-134" etc should be an en-dash for page ranges.
• " "Fable 21 - The Mouse and the Frog (" should be an en-dash.

That's it for me. Primarily issues with "vicious" and the material in other related articles. On hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

An amazing coincidence, but I'm watching the second episode of the second season of After Life and the tale is retold there to Ricky Gervais in the graveyard. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon I'll close this review on 1 May if no progress is made. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I fixed some flaws, didn't fix others for these reasons:

• The lede summarizes all the most pertinent points of the article. There really isn't much else to say on this topic. It's not exactly a biography of Charlemagne. I am not going to inflate the lede with filler.

  It's inadequate, it doesn't cover the major sections of the article. I'm not asking you for filler, nor am I suggesting it's a biography of Charlemagne, just that it's currently an insufficient summary of all the main points of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable with captionless images, but what should I put there? This is an illustration I made so I did not mention the source, as I would have done had I taken it off someone else's book.

  An image caption like "In the fable, the scorpion convinces a frog to carry him across a river on his back." or something would be far superior to blank. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Vicious" is appropriate because this is about a work of fiction, not a description of real people.

  None of the sources I have access to describe this trait as "vicious". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why am I being blamed for problems in other articles, which I didn't even write?

  I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in formatting across similar articles, I'm pointing out that other articles contain material which is absent from but directly related to this one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've responded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And I note you haven't fixed some of the other issues but haven't noted why. I won't be able to continue this review if we can't track the modifications and the resolution of this first set of queries. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless we get some resolution on the above matters, I'll be failing this nomination on 1 May. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Captionless image

It's my impression that the image at the head of the article has been lifted from a copyrighted source without permission, against all guidelines. It should be removed until its status is clarified. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your impression? Prove your allegation! Tell me where you think I stole this image! Kurzon (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, seems unlikely. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, the way the upper margin cuts off the plant suggests scanning from a larger picture. Kurzon, you loaded the image and have been on WP long enough to know that guidelines require you to present proof that it is free. I'll give you one week to provide a verifiable source and then will raise it with the curator of Wikimedia. I'm not the only one suspicious of the image; it was queried by the GA moderator. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. This is an image I made myself using GIMP and Inkscape. Kurzon (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, you acknowledge authorship and the metadata bears you out on GIMP. Now add a caption to the file. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Jura

I just bought a copy of Jura by Georgii Tushkan and the English translation The Hunter of the Pamirs. The scorpion and frog fable appears in the English translation but it does not appear in the Russian original. I can only speculate that the fable was inserted by the English translator — I won't offer this speculation in the article because it's too much original research, but simply mentioning that the fable doesn't appear in the original Russian should be fine. Since this is such an esoteric topic, I doubt I'll find a secondary source to cite on this particular fact. Kurzon (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's very well spotted, Kurzon. It raises a couple of questions. One is the actual wording of the reference to the fable in Lev Nitoburg's 1933 novel; the other is where the translator of The Hunter of the Pamirs came across it? Any ideas? Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: In Nitoburg's novel, the fable isn't even recited in its complete form (which actually suggests the fable was by then well-known in Russian culture; the author expected his readers to get it). Kurzon (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you mention the actual wording; we need to be sure it is an actual reference in Nitoburg. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

«Жил был скорпион. И понадобилось ему перебраться через топь. Плавать скорпионы, как известно, не умеют. Делать нечего, скорпион покликал лягушку: — Перевези. — Лягушка боится: «Да ведь ты меня ужалишь?» —  Дура, зачем же я тебя жалить буду, ты потонешь, и я с тобой. — Лягушка поверила. Поплыли. Скорпион сидит, терпит. Уж так хочется ему лягушку ужалить, так хочется, так хочется . . . Однако ничего, терпит. Только начали к середине топи подбираться, не вытерпел скорпион. Ужалил. Лягушке, понятно, кюк. Однако и скорпиону каюк. Лягушка, помирая, все же успела спросить: «Зачем же ужалил? Сам ведь тонешь». И захлебываясь, ответил скорпион: — Ха-а... рактер такой. Алеша посмеялся. Сказал: — Ну разве же этакие потонут? Влад покрутил бородой: — Пожалуй, что понемногу и перетонут.

Google Translation:

“There was a scorpion. And he needed to cross the swamp. Scorpions do not know how to swim. There is nothing to do, the scorpion called out to the frog: - Move it. - The frog is afraid: “Why, you sting me?” - Fool, why am I going to sting you, you will drown, and I'm with you. - The frog believed. Sailed. Scorpio sits, suffers. He really wants to sting a frog, he wants it so much, he wants it so much. . . However, nothing suffers. Just started to approach the middle of the swamp, the scorpion could not bear it. Stung. A frog, of course, a kyuk. However, the scorpion kayuk. The frog, dying, nevertheless managed to ask: “Why did you sting? You’re drowning yourself. ” And choking, the scorpion answered: - Ha-ha ... such [is my] character. Alyosha laughed. Said, “Well, are they really going to drown?” Vlad twirled his beard: - Perhaps, that little by little they will also grind.

Kurzon (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty comprehensive, even down to the calming of the frog's objections. Thanks. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Yes, rereading it now, it's actually a pretty complete retelling (if we forgive Google Translate's spotty translation). My faulty memory. I found this via Google Books. This is the earliest reference I could find. I have shared my findings with Areta Takeda, who AFAIK is the only scholar studying this fable's history. Maybe he'll write another paper and we'll have a new source to cite. Kurzon (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Did Orson Welles speak Russian? Kurzon (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not so far as I know. Round about the time he made Mr Arkadin he had befriended Akim Tamiroff (who starrred in it), so maybe that's who told him about the fable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Genesis Rabbah

@Sweetpool50: In the course of my research I found tons of animal fables that had scorpion or frogs or both in them. Let's just stick to the ones that have a clear and strong connection. Kurzon (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:BRD situation now and needs discussion. To give it context, I acquiesced in your removed of this particular story back in February last year, since you were putting so much effort into trying to raise the article to GA status. I was impressed the other day that Rabbi Schwartz reintroduced the Mishnah reference and will ask him if he can throw more light on its origin. In the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), Women (Seder Nashim), Vows (Nedarim), Chapter IV, p. 41|English translation, which was the original source given, a rather unlikely claim is made for this and other different stories, but I suspect there is more rabbinical exegesis behind it that the Rabbi might know of.

To address Kurzon's point, this isn't just another scorpion/frog tale but includes the detail of the insect riding on the frog's back, also there in the kindred Arab tale which may be a derivative and used to be included with mention of the Jewish. I think a case can be made for it belonging in the Precursor section into which have been bundled the other Persian and Aesopic stories that do not include exactly these two creatures. The responsible thing to do now is look for scholarship which may have made a connection. Two places to start are first the section in the Jewish Encyclopedia that deals with folktales similar to Aesop's that feature in rabbinic literature; and the other is to look at Takeda's study to see if he noted the Genesis Rabbah connection then, or has since. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It was I who added the stuff about Aesop. I felt it was necessary because a lot of people attribute this fable to Aesop, even though Aesop was not even a real person and this fable dates back to the early 20th century as far as I can tell. It's an understandable error because Aesop does have a few fables that teach a similar lesson. Your rabbinic tale, however, does not teach that moral (also, scorpions are arachnids, not insects).

The Scorpion and the Turtle is almost certainly a precursor to the fable. If the rabbinic tale is an earlier precursor, then why did someone change the scorpion to a turtle and then back again? I don't see the chain of evolution here. I don't think this article should list every old fable that has a passing resemblance to The Scorpion and the Frog, it should stick to a plausible chain of evolution.

Takeda's essay makes no mention of Genesis Rabbah. Kurzon (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Folklore is incredibly fluid, as the Jewish Encyclopedia article makes very clear. Participants change, morals reverse themselves or are given a new direction. That is why the question of this particular instance needs to be reopened. Two or three people have now made the connection. It will probably make sense to ask for comment via an appropriate forum for this subject area. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I looked up Takeda's essay and the Jewish encyclopedia. Neither make a connection between that Genesis Rabbah tale and The Scorpion and the Frog. The Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't even have any scholarly critiques. Kurzon (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I should note, also, that as editors it is we who make the call as to whether some scholar's opinion is worth including. We're required to provide references to whatever we include, but we decide what to include or ignore. Kurzon (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The "we" in this case must be WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. I've contacted the Rabbi and Folklore Forum and asked them for feedback. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Who is Folklore Forum? Kurzon (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Folklore Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Aesop

I created the Aesop bit to clear the misconception that some have that this fable is by Aesop. I would like to mention that Aesop wasn't even a real person as far as historians can tell. Why do other people keep deleting this whenever I put it in? Kurzon (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Because that information is in the linked article but is WP:OFFTOPIC in the context of the fable in this article. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

But it would directly address the misconception. Kurzon (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:OFFTOPIC. The article is about a fable that seems to have appeared first in the 20th century and perhaps has some connection with a 15th century fable which happens to have a scorpion in it. Dragging in a discussion of the possible existence of an author from two thousand years before on the basis of a false ascription is taking the article much too far off course. If the Genesis Rabbah tale is off-topic, then so is the possible existence of Aesop. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading

It is misleading to suggest this story originated in 1933. It originated centuries ago, and the latest iteration is from 1933. If you don't like how I phrased it, please re-phrase it instead of reverting it. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that Lev Nitoburg invented the fable. His novel is simply the earliest appearance that I could find on Google Books. If you know of an earlier appearance, do show it to us. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty where the fable comes from, the article merely says that the evidence suggests Russia. Kurzon (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The article clearly explains that the crux of the fable originated long ago in Persia. This should be stated in the beginning. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The Scorpion and the Turtle only seems to be Persian because a Persian book is the earliest appearance I could find. It could have come from India. Kurzon (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Kingturtle, the article "clearly" explains no such thing. Long before Kurzon and myself took an interest in the fable, the article here was guided by work by the scholar Takeda Arata. That is in German, but another scholar has summed up the conclusion of scholarship so far:

For readers who are interested in a historical exegesis, there is an extended and detailed study by Arata Takeda, University of Tübingen, “Blumenreiche Handelswege. Ost-westliche Streifzüge auf den Spuren der Fabel Der Skorpion und der Frosch”, published in Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte in March, 2011, who finds that a fable called “The Scorpion and the Turtle” may have its origin in the ancient Sanskrit tradition collected in the Panchatantra – though it isn’t found in any documents prior to the 14th century. (Dr. Takeda intends to continue his search.) The fact is that, in the Persian texts found so far, the tale is never the same as “The Scorpion and the Frog”.Giancarlo Livrarghi, May 2011

Kurzon has discovered the earliest version in a Western language of the fable of "The Scorpion and the Frog", which is a completely different fable from "The Scorpion and the Turtle". There are indeed other fables involving a scorpion and frog, found in Muslim and Jewish folklore from about the 5th Century CE, but the morals drawn there have nothing in common with the later fables. Kurzon treated earlier mentions of these as WP:OFFTOPIC, pointing out that there isn't sufficient similarity and that we cannot take stories of a scorpion been ferried over a river by a frog as significant evidence of a common ancestry. Nor is a story that substitutes a turtle for a frog evidence of common ancestry. All that Takeda was prepared to say was that a good deal more research needs to be done before any such conclusion can be drawn. And that, according to the guideline WP:RS, is where the matter must rest. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe The Scorpion and the Turtle should be broken off into its own article. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)