Talk:Lion's share

message: Does anyone know of an origin for this expression prior to Aesop's fable?  In the fable, the lion's share is defined, quite clearly, by the lion himself, as all four quarters.  I am aware that most people who use this term mean it as "the largest part," but assuming that the fable is the origin this expression is from the fable, that usage seems erroneous.
I suggest that the article mention both the common usage, as meaning "the greatest part," or "vast majority," etc., as well as the original meaning, that the lion takes all shares.
From http://www.hol.gr/greece/aesop1.htm
The Lion's Share
The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal, and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you will dare to lay a paw upon it."
"Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl: 
"You may share the labours of the great, but you will not share the spoil."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silarius (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems that the version of this tale as told in the article did not coincide with the actual story. I have corrected this, as well as slightly re-wording the article in spots so that it reads better. Additionally, i see no relevance in the sentence which described the lion as specifically male, and have removed it accordingly. I may have missed something there, but I am fairly confident in its irrelevance. --Isis 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: I want to make a formal complaint against Dream Focus, whose intervention in the editing of this article has been destructive, opinionated and inconsistent over the past year. Up until 8 August 2009 the article dealt mainly with the idiom 'the lion's share', although reference was made to one of the 'Aesop' fables from which it ultimately derives. On that date it was tagged as unsourced and remained so until 27 May 2010, when the the tag was removed after a thorough rewriting. During the course of the next few months the article was further expanded with, in particular, consideration of Eastern analogues in Rumi and the Jataka Tales. Beginning on 7 November 2010, Dream Focus (who had never played any previous part in the article's creation or development) began deleting a section under a number of different pretexts. It is the inconsistent nature of these that demonstrates his incomprehension of the issues involved and stubborn insistence on his own POV, which I would claim is malicious and constitutes harrassment of those trying to improve the standard of WP articles.
To begin with he claimed that the Jataka Tale was on a different theme and did not belong in the article because 'This isn't about fables, its about the expression Lion's share" (16 November). When the article was reverted to its original unsourced state (tag included) and a seperate article dealing with Aesop's fable was created, Dream Focus called in an associate on the grounds that 'You have now made another article The Lion's Share (fable) which includes not just those related to a Lion's Share, but things totally unrelated which just happen to have a lion in them' (21 November). This was untrue, since the Jataka concerns a jackal and  otters. What it demonstrates is Dream Focus' incoherence and unwillingness to consider the evidence. On 24 November, HelloAnnyong reverted the article without including any of the new, useful and fully sourced additions. While not disputing the WP:COATRACK guidance, I did appeal that this 'third opinion' did not pay due regard to how tales transform in their journeys from place to place in the field of folklore.
When HelloAnnyong did not chose to answer, the article was further expanded, pointing out among other things that there were four early versions of the 'Aesop' story, involving different animals (apart from the lion), different reasoning for the division of the spoils, and drawing different morals, so that there is no tidy consistency in tellings of a fable supposed to derive from a single author. On 21 November 2011 Dream Focus again deleted the section on the grounds that there was a 'consensus' (two opinions against one) against its retention. When Annielogue intervened to even out the odds, Dream Focus retreated to yet another position, that there has to be a source that claims kinship between the fables cited. One has now been provided, but I do not expect that he will respect it, any more than he has the repeated attempts to accomodate him over the past 12 months. That is the reason I have called for mediation, and am relieved that there are such procedures to guard editors from disruptive behaviour, verging on edit warring, such as this. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with all the personal attacks?  You keep posting all over the place.  I thought the issue had been resolved, a third opinion asked for, and agreeing that had no place in the article.  Then weeks later, you went and added it back in.  Had I noticed at the time I would've brought it up again then.  I do not know the guy.  I just posted on the third opinion noticeboard, and he was the first one that showed up.  You had a fit, and then when you didn't get your way, tried to vandalize this article and create a separate article which he then turned into a redirect back here.  Kindly stop your ridiculous bad faith attacks.  Dream Focus 13:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I haven't edited on here in more than half a year. Why am I being accused again? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, since you keep bringing him up, I thought I'd let him know, as is proper.  You made comments about him last year, "This arbitrary action therefore appears to be an abuse of his status, probably out of biased support for a friend, without any particular care for improving the article or helping Wikipedia fulfil its function. Rather than put in a complaint about this behaviour, I have..."  Accusing him of abusing his status, whatever that means, etc.  And you posted to Annielogue's talk page to get him to agree with you, and later again to bring him over here to talk on this talk page.  Now lets kindly focus on the original research problem in the other section of this talk page.  Dream Focus 01:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Malicious editing

message: I've included a reference for including the Eastern variants in the article. The reference lists tale types in the Aarne-Thompson system. It reads:
0051 The Lion's Share...
0051***
:That reference proves that it is listed in the section that apparently list all stories that have wild animals in them, regardless of the fable being taught.  Dream Focus 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation 

message: I've included a reference for including the Eastern variants in the article. The reference lists tale types in the Aarne-Thompson system. It reads:
0051 The Lion's Share (Wolf divides booty equally and is killed - fox learns his lesson and gives all to lion).
0051*** Fox as umpire to divide cheese (Eats all under pretence of making uneven halves even; remainder is his fee).
In this system 1 - 99 are the animal tales. This tale is 51 (with *** indicating, I believe, a subtype).
To make this clear, tale 50 is a different Aesop's fable, The Fox and the Sick Lion and type 52 is another different Aesop's fable, Fox Refuses to be a Mediator.
As it is hard to find an objective way of deciding to everyone's satisfaction where sameness ends and difference begins, for the present case, where there are not separate articles on the subtypes, I believe we should use this well-established system of typology and include fables of the same type. --Annielogue (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Back on topic, is there any reliable source that says that any of the tales listed in the Other related Eastern fables have any possible connection to the Lion's share fable?  That is what this article is about.  If you want to make hundreds of separate articles for each of the types in this system, that doesn't affect this article.  Any fable that was on such a list article, would have a link to its own article if it was notable enough to have one, as some fables now do.  Dream Focus 11:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Does it say specifically why these things are grouped together?  If it doesn't do it by relevant theme, then its not relevant in this article.  Saying they are listed together on a list because the stories all have wild animals, or whatnot, in them makes no sense at all.  Dream Focus 16:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The quote from his critic said that things with the same motif aren't always grouped together, while things that are "wide divergences" from each can be.  Where does it list exactly what each type means?  It could be animals dealing with one animal of greater power, or something that'd include many unrelated things.  Do college level textbooks use this system at all?  Dream Focus 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I see them complaining that it is sexist, that it has inaccuracies, how others have added to or altered it for their own list over time, and whatnot.  I don't see anywhere where it explains exactly what each type is, and a full list of what it contains.  Dream Focus 15:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of all fables of A-T type 51 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/47/51/99/PDF/Societasleonina-pava.pdf
*:Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: more appropriate online source provided Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lion's share. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203141718/http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/19722/ to http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/19722/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Lion's Share which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress