Talk:The Scorpion and the Frog

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

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

text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Before expanding, please see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content - Shajure (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Section was added again, anon, I applied the editorial axe.Shajure (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: 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)
replies: text: I felt the same way and did away with it. Foxyshadis(talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR article tag... Is it still needed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "It is better we both perish" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Scorpion and the Frog or The Weasel and the Woodpecker? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Goldsmith on scorpions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attribution to Aesop 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Oh? That would be OK, I guess. What does he have to say about that? Kurzon (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking about it, but maybe I don't know... M.L. 84.223.141.149 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hood's book

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The 'missing' plot point

message: , could you explain what capacity he's speaking in then? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Orson Welles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your impression?  Prove your allegation!  Tell me where you think I stole this image!  Kurzon (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, seems unlikely.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Captionless image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Jura

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Aesop