Talk:The Ant and the Grasshopper

message: :Image:Sillysymphony-grasshopper ant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sillysymphony-grasshopper ant.jpg

message: The article says, "The 5 November 2006 episode of Jong-Cherl Yeon's comic-book format diary, Marineblues, featured an alternate version of this fable..." Trying to find references for this I turned up no Google hits for the name 'Jong-Cherl Yeon'. There's a cartoon called Marineblues at , and I guess that's it, but the author information is in Korean. Can anyone Korean-readers take a look and update the article with a better transliteration of the author's name, and perhaps a link to the strip this article references? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic strip citation

message: The story was also known in the "far east," the term for East Asia in ancient times, however in east asia, it was a spiritual allegory as to the uselessness of materialism.  Although atributed to Aesop, the story's likely origin is from somewhere in India or China.  I need to point out, ancient Greek society, while it had myths pertaining to nature, it was not as "nature heavy" as Daoist fairy tales.  Please do more research; you may end up finding an older version.
67.148.120.113 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Needs further research 

message: Here is my reason for pointing out, that the "Ant and the Grasshoper" is not about material gain, but rather, about spiritual.  This story is familiar to anime fans; it can be heard in the anime movie "Vampire Hunter D; Bloodlust."  Here goes;
Once upon a time there was a hard working squirrel, that gathered and gathered nuts, and took the nuts to its tree to prepare for winter.  The squirrel was finished with its job when chance came, it spied on a delectable nut, and sought to grab it, but then, an owl swooped down and snatched the squirrel.  The squirrel said "what a shame; what is going to happen to all that good food."
The moral of the story, is that a person may be a hardworker BUT, we are all at the mercy of greater powers, in the fable's case the "greater power" was the owl.  In our case, our wealth (if we have it) could be taken away by an earthquake, a huricane, political upheaval, one minute a man can be a king among men, the next, a "homeless bum."  
If you think of the story in materialistic terms, it can be "counter attacked" by the squirrel and the owl fairy tale, however if you think of it in spiritual terms, then, The Ant and the Grasshoper is unassailable.  Winter, represents death, the ants work, represents spiritual cultivation.  I have good reason to think this because the grasshoper can only be lazy if it has a good reason to be; namely the apparent wealth of the grassy fields.  However the ant warns him "you're a fool."
It is a spiritual allegory, concerning those who do not acknowledge the spiritual things, and those who spend their time in wasteful, pointless hedonism.  The ant, allegorically a spiritual person, needs not fear winter, namely death, because of his work, the grasshoper on the other hand has much to fear from "winter."  I must point out these fables are ancient, going back, likely to "superstitious" times when spiritual matters dominated people's thoughts.  If the Ant and the Grasshoper is indeed originally an Indian fairy tale, all the more reason to think it is in fact a spiritual story, urging people to cultivate themselves spiritually, cultivation, to prepare for "winter."  Whether you choose to work or not, does not stop the fact that winter DOES come, for everyone.
Again though it depends how you view it; inevitably the western world gives it a materialistic interpretation while the eastern one, at least the ancient eastern one, likely gave it a spiritual interpretation.  Spiritually speaking it could be said that the sincerely pious are the Ant, while people who go clubbing, drinking, gambling, movie watching, video game playing  ;-), hey even gaming is hedonism, "hedonism" does not have to mean drug use and womanizing, the point I'm trying to make is that all such types, represent the grasshoper.  You spend your time playing video games if you're not wealthy enough for parties and women, or you spend your time in parties and women, or parties and men if you're a woman, where will you be when winter comes?
Its a powerful story, if you think of it in spiritual matters.  Even Solomon said "learn from the ant, thou sluggard."  Considering that Solomon was an ancient King, did Solomon refer to material or spiritual things I wonder?  It was said of Solomon, that he was a learned man; it is very probably, he was familiar with the fairy tale, and that proverb of Solomon was a direct reference to the story.  When Solomon said "learn from the ant," likely he was refering to spiritual cultivation.  The western world inevitably applies material meaning to all things, it never acknowledges the soul.  Talk of the soul, also, in the west, is generally misguided by centuries of dogma centered more around brain washing and thought control, rather than genuine spiritual growth.  Does the idea of a God that does not share power, make sense?  What I mean is, the idea of "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" seriously what kind of an egomaniac, demands worship?  Having the whole universe to rule what does he want with worshipers on this tiny spec of cosmic dust we call a planet?  Very little of it makes sense; due to such misguided views, millions live in ignorance.
Very ancient wisdom though, has its merits, and they can not be corrupted.
I'm tired though; I better go to bed.  I violated Wikipedia's rules against my better judgement.
67.148.120.103 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "Counter" Fairy Tale 

message: I have recycled as many items as possible from the section originally called "Popular Culture" in new sections which now give them context and significance. I don't know enough about the rest to be sure what significance they have, although I have deleted two items where not enough information is given to form any judgement. The section is now retitled "Modern Allusions" (since many aspects of popular culture have been discussed in earlier sections) and needs sorting by a more knowledgeable editor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: Noticed the line beneath the main intro to this section alluded to the story having something to do with Libertarian ideals. Removed after checking the citation for this statement. Website was not citing any specific texts on this matter and states on its front page: "Welcome to revolution, one person's view of ideas that can change our world for the better. Revolution was started in 1995 as a guide to libertarian ideas and is always a work in progress." The statement given appears to be a matter of personal opinion and therefore no place in this article. I've been seeing a lot of political assertions in non political articles. Someone needs to pay close attention to these as they are tricky to catch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.63.179 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story as a representation for libertarian ideals. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lawrence Jacob-The Ant and the Grasshopper.normal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: In the excellent Disney cartoon, hiring the Grasshopper really brightens things up for the Ants. The drab tunnels become a Grand Ballroom, and the Ants, from the Queen to the lowliest worker, all dance happily to the lively fiddle music.  Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of the Grasshopper on the Ant Lifestyle

message: The "alternative tradition" whereby the ant is a theif is not relevant to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.95.62 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternaative tradition of Ant relavence? 

message: Because the fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper is well known, it has attracted a good deal of comment on its possible interpretations on this talk page. An earlier unsigned comment in 24 January 2013 questioned the relevance of the counter-fable of the thieving ant. Techhead7890 recently added a template also questioning its inclusion and asking for discussion - without the courtesy of starting such a discussion (him)self. I have therefore reversed that change and am starting the discussion here.
Techhead7890 cites WP:UNDUE as his authority for a proposed high-handed  removal of the paragraph altogether "in 24h if no counterreason is given". I seem to remember a WP guideline that suggests considerably longer than that to allow reasonable discussion. But in any case, WP:UNDUE is not applicable in this case since it refers to relatively recent interpretations of a subject whereas the paragraph is comparing two ancient texts attributed to the same author. One also wonders whether the editor bothered to read the lead, where the counter-fable is cited and given a context that justifies its mention.
I have slightly rewritten the later paragraph in order to make it clearer. The point turns, not on the "immutable personality" of the editor's attempted revision, but on the different reading of the ant's behaviour given in ancient texts. The tradition of its diligence has been strengthened by ancient Christian intervention, but long before that there was a different interpretation which was later recorded by such impeccably Christian writers and collectors of fables as Gabriele Faerno and Roger L'Estrange, who are cited in the relevant paragraph.
A single paragraph in a very long article which goes on to discuss several later reinterpretations of the story of The Ant and the Grasshopper is not at all excessive. The model on which all fable articles have been based are discussed under the heading "General guidelines..." at Talk:Aesop's Fables and the development of often conflicting interpretations is mentioned there as a valid subject within such articles. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The thieving ant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Ant and the Grasshopper. 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/20120420172650/http://www.warroom.com/antgh.php to http://www.warroom.com/antgh.php
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) 10:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the Russian folklore variant based on Krylov's poem be mentioned? It has numerous variations (as both a joke and a poem). There, the Grasshopper (a female) is a high society girl who survives perfectly well throughout the year. When the Ant, who, despite all his efforts, is still a peasant in ragged clothes, sees her in the winter (after two previous meetings in the summer and autumn), going about her business, and learns that she is going to a club to socialize with famous authors, he says: "if you see Krylov there, tell him he's a (add insult about intellect or honesty)". Omeganian (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Krylov's poem was a close version of La Fontaine's French. A later adaptation involving a joke at Krylov's expense does not merit a section of its own, it would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking not about a separate section, but a mention in the Moral and artistic debate part, but if you say so... Omeganian (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It struck me that the debate section might be the best place to include mention of some of the later Russian interpretations. What put me off was your use of the word "folklore", which was inappropriate. What would be interesting is not that these readings are 'Russian' but that they provide a new (political) slant in the ongoing debate over the fable's moral. In order to avoid WP:OR, proper references would be needed that acknowledge this fact, rather than appeal to the texts themselves. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Folklore 

message: Saw a mention of this, seems related.Omeganian (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not related, apparently; it refers to  the actual insect dried and powdered into the flour. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely no indication it's the same thing. In fact, it seems obvious it isn't; the name refers to a single loaf among many, nor a recipe. Seems to be a cicada in the Russian translation, too (can't check the original).Omeganian (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have it your own way, but a good deal more would be needed by way of trustworthy sources to establish a connection with the fable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Temptation of Christ