Talk:The Fox and the Grapes

message: Why not compare a couple of classic versions of this fable, instead of offering this pedestrian rehash? Not even fable is Wikified. --Wetman 08:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: The section discussing this point has been deleted for two reasons. One is that it largely consists of unsourced speculation. In addition it refers only to Greek versions of the fable, while in the Latin of Phaedrus, with which the majority of translators would be more familiar, the grapes are referred to as both unripe and sour. However, there does seem to be evidence that La Fontaine incorporated a sly sexual reference into his version of the fable. The point about double meanings has accordingly been added to the section dealing with that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sour or unripe grapes?

message: Part of the article read, "The English idiom sour grapes which develops from the story is often misused of envious disparagement to others but what the fable describes is purely subjective behaviour. (emphasis added)"
I rewrote this to, "The English idiom sour grapes which develops from the story is often also used for envious disparagement to others but what the fable describes is purely subjective behaviour."
because an idiom is a social construct--it can no more be commonly misused than a word can be commonly misused. When most people agree on an idiom--it is correctly applied. However, in any case, if you want to claim that the idiom "is often misused" you really need a citation because the idea that this is a misuse is novel even if the main interpretation is not novel and this is not consistent with the main interpretation. See WP:OR. 018 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminding me that language (not just idioms) is a social construct, something that was drummed into me at university! I have rephrased your revision so as to highlight where the movement in meaning has come from. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  idiom 

message: Shouldn't that be rationalization?--CRConrad (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or denial. Rather than admit the pain of wanting the grapes he cannot reach, the fox denies they are desirable. Seems far too overanalysed (and unattributed) to go in the heading. --Hugh7 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, there is a valid reference to discussion of cognitive dissonance in relation to the fable, and mention of it is therefore justified. Opinionated rants from editors too ignorant of WP procedure even to know how to sign their interventions are, however, deprecated and unwanted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments about "cognitive dissonance" are sourced as from "one commentator". That is not adequate. I think a source should be specified, or the section deleted. The cognitive dissonance section is on the margins of the topic, so I think it should be sourced or removed. Pete unseth (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive dissonance? 

message: I tried moving John Rae's illustration to the lede, since the article lacked an introductory image and it was odd to have it centred in the next section, but was told by User:Mzilikazi1939 that I was being "insensitive" and that my attempt to make the article look like all the other Aesop articles on Wikipedia was "dull conventionality". It's been reverted again as being "POV", the implication presumably being that my POV is wrong and Mzilikazi's POV is right. Can I get a third opinion, or a clearer explanation from Mzilikazi? Is there a reason why the picture can't serve as an image of the article as a whole, or why it should be unconventionally centre-aligned? --McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

text: McGeddon reverted quoting WP:LEADIMAGE as a reason. This guidance merely states what is common practice but not a general rule. In this case the illustration, which appears immediately below a short lead, would not work so well with a right placement since, to my eye, the fox in the corner is almost lost, given the mechanics of peripheral vision. Centre placement is provided for in formatting and, given the curving upper frame, seems to work best this way but, obviously, would look odd in a lead position. I hope any response will take this into account. Go here to see what McGeddon's 'insensitive' reversion looks like and judge for yourselves whether it is an improvement. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it looked absolutely awful where it was. Huge break in the flow of the text and ugly whitespace either side of the image. Just bleurgh. No good reason to have it there and plenty of good reasons to follow guidelines and put it to the right side of the lead. GDallimore (Talk) 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration placement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Fox and the Grapes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017034056/http://www.john-whitehead.co.uk:80/objects.htm to http://www.john-whitehead.co.uk/objects.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should it be mentioned as a variant? The general idea does appear very similar. Omeganian (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a completely different fable separately indexed by Perry. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fox Who Lost His Tail