![]() | Nature fakers controversy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Incredible story. That is, that the public perceived Seton et al. as more than fiction. Did they, really? I read Seton in childhood and Lobo seemed "as real" as tripods from Mars. But it was 1970s, not 1890s. Perhaps the article needs more insight into how did contemporary readers perceive those stories, did they actually took talking wolves for a fact etc. NVO ( talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(beginning review) Xtzou ( Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a well writing article as well as extremely entertaining. To think that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and the tenets widely accepted in his life time! You have done a good job of summarizing the Nature fakers controversy. (Today we would never ascribe all animal behavior to "instinct".) Excellent work!
I have done some minor copy editing. Feel free to revert any errors.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem with the introduction. In "... argued as to the veracity of their examples ...", "as to" doesn't tell us whether they argued for or against. I infer from what seems most reasonable to me that they argued for. If so, then a simpler statement would be better: "defended the veracity...", for instance. For GA, this needs fixing. I hope someone knowledgeable will do it. Zaslav ( talk)
I wonder if the controversy may have influenced the furries of today. Both involve anthropomorphism (what a word) and furries have their own controversies and perception problems to deal with. Although the fandom is traced to more recent times, perhaps the way fans depict animals and identify themselves with "fursonas" may have at least a subliminal link to the works of Seton, Long, et al? Forgive me if that's a crazy query. -- an odd name 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the view of each side's points and accuracy from today's perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.240 ( talk) 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here wondering the same thing. I guess the modern expert opinion, where there is consensus, would find truth and exaggerations in both sides. For example, it's now supposed that just about all animals do in fact learn and don't just "run on instinct" entirely, and that when animal parents raise their young, they often teach them. At the same time, there's little reason to believe that (for example) a bird has ever made a cast for its own broken leg, or some of the other anecdotes. (On the other hand, birds and beavers and other animals do have a lot of innate and/or learned knowledge of construction, so maybe it's not so implausible as it would seem?) 209.158.7.191 ( talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not have access to the sources but I notice that some of the debate was linked with ideas of evolution (there are two mentions of Darwin in the article) and I find that this aspect is not covered in the article. Lutts notes here that Long was a stauch anti-Darwinian. There is a letter to the editor from NY Times where an author wishes Mr Roosevelt to do away with Darwin the nature faker and there seems to have been an article examining this - Thomas R. Dunlap (1992) The Realistic Animal Story: Ernest Thompson Seton, Charles Roberts, and Darwinism. Forest & Conservation History 36(2):56-62. Perhaps those with better access to material can review and weave this aspect into the article. Shyamal ( talk) 07:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
When an editor makes three distinct edits, you do not revert all of his changes en masse.
If you have specific objections to 2 of 3, then you may revert those two.
Why is someone who does not understand these principles overriding me?
Varlaam (
talk)
20:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What a great article. Beautifully written and about as neutral as could be; I applaud your efforts here and look forward to more. Seegoon ( talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The evolving view of "Nature" that sets the scene for this interesting and well written article can be given more extended treatment than the somewhat self-contradictory "A renewed public interest in nature and its promise of aesthetic and recreational enjoyment began in the United States during the late 19th century. "-- Wetman ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article which goes through the topic in great detail, but there's one thing I feel is missing. Which side would today be regarded as correct? Who was right? I mean, it's slightly hinted at in the article that we now know that some of the criticisms are themselves wrong (like animals being entirely driven by instinct and unable to learn, which we certainly know to be incorrect now), but this aspect is not really touched upon. It would be a much more enlightening article if there were a section at the end reviewing the various statements of the protagonists and see what modern science has to say about their positions. -- Hibernian ( talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if Jack London's novella The Call of the Wild was ever mentioned in the Nature fakers controversy? After all, it was published in 1903 (right in the middle of the controversy), was immediately popular (more so than the other books you cite), is told, more-or-less, from a dog's viewpoint, is sympathetic to the dog and details his transformation into a wild but noble animal. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the sentence about Jack London. I would still like to know if CotW was ever considered as an example for either side. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So we have an article about the controversy about that genre of literature, but we don't really have an article about that genre of literature itself.
This one briefly examines the genre by citing the precedent of Aesop's Fables but that's about it.
Maybe an article on the history of animal literature from Aesop to "Jonathan Livingston Seagull". -- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Spelling fixed in the name of the article by Edward Clark, from "Fakers" to "Fakirs," which is the spelling used in the original title of the article. Without this fix, the later comment "over Clark's original spelling" makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.125.107 ( talk) 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Nature fakers controversy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Incredible story. That is, that the public perceived Seton et al. as more than fiction. Did they, really? I read Seton in childhood and Lobo seemed "as real" as tripods from Mars. But it was 1970s, not 1890s. Perhaps the article needs more insight into how did contemporary readers perceive those stories, did they actually took talking wolves for a fact etc. NVO ( talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(beginning review) Xtzou ( Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a well writing article as well as extremely entertaining. To think that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and the tenets widely accepted in his life time! You have done a good job of summarizing the Nature fakers controversy. (Today we would never ascribe all animal behavior to "instinct".) Excellent work!
I have done some minor copy editing. Feel free to revert any errors.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem with the introduction. In "... argued as to the veracity of their examples ...", "as to" doesn't tell us whether they argued for or against. I infer from what seems most reasonable to me that they argued for. If so, then a simpler statement would be better: "defended the veracity...", for instance. For GA, this needs fixing. I hope someone knowledgeable will do it. Zaslav ( talk)
I wonder if the controversy may have influenced the furries of today. Both involve anthropomorphism (what a word) and furries have their own controversies and perception problems to deal with. Although the fandom is traced to more recent times, perhaps the way fans depict animals and identify themselves with "fursonas" may have at least a subliminal link to the works of Seton, Long, et al? Forgive me if that's a crazy query. -- an odd name 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the view of each side's points and accuracy from today's perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.240 ( talk) 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here wondering the same thing. I guess the modern expert opinion, where there is consensus, would find truth and exaggerations in both sides. For example, it's now supposed that just about all animals do in fact learn and don't just "run on instinct" entirely, and that when animal parents raise their young, they often teach them. At the same time, there's little reason to believe that (for example) a bird has ever made a cast for its own broken leg, or some of the other anecdotes. (On the other hand, birds and beavers and other animals do have a lot of innate and/or learned knowledge of construction, so maybe it's not so implausible as it would seem?) 209.158.7.191 ( talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not have access to the sources but I notice that some of the debate was linked with ideas of evolution (there are two mentions of Darwin in the article) and I find that this aspect is not covered in the article. Lutts notes here that Long was a stauch anti-Darwinian. There is a letter to the editor from NY Times where an author wishes Mr Roosevelt to do away with Darwin the nature faker and there seems to have been an article examining this - Thomas R. Dunlap (1992) The Realistic Animal Story: Ernest Thompson Seton, Charles Roberts, and Darwinism. Forest & Conservation History 36(2):56-62. Perhaps those with better access to material can review and weave this aspect into the article. Shyamal ( talk) 07:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
When an editor makes three distinct edits, you do not revert all of his changes en masse.
If you have specific objections to 2 of 3, then you may revert those two.
Why is someone who does not understand these principles overriding me?
Varlaam (
talk)
20:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What a great article. Beautifully written and about as neutral as could be; I applaud your efforts here and look forward to more. Seegoon ( talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The evolving view of "Nature" that sets the scene for this interesting and well written article can be given more extended treatment than the somewhat self-contradictory "A renewed public interest in nature and its promise of aesthetic and recreational enjoyment began in the United States during the late 19th century. "-- Wetman ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article which goes through the topic in great detail, but there's one thing I feel is missing. Which side would today be regarded as correct? Who was right? I mean, it's slightly hinted at in the article that we now know that some of the criticisms are themselves wrong (like animals being entirely driven by instinct and unable to learn, which we certainly know to be incorrect now), but this aspect is not really touched upon. It would be a much more enlightening article if there were a section at the end reviewing the various statements of the protagonists and see what modern science has to say about their positions. -- Hibernian ( talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if Jack London's novella The Call of the Wild was ever mentioned in the Nature fakers controversy? After all, it was published in 1903 (right in the middle of the controversy), was immediately popular (more so than the other books you cite), is told, more-or-less, from a dog's viewpoint, is sympathetic to the dog and details his transformation into a wild but noble animal. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the sentence about Jack London. I would still like to know if CotW was ever considered as an example for either side. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So we have an article about the controversy about that genre of literature, but we don't really have an article about that genre of literature itself.
This one briefly examines the genre by citing the precedent of Aesop's Fables but that's about it.
Maybe an article on the history of animal literature from Aesop to "Jonathan Livingston Seagull". -- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Spelling fixed in the name of the article by Edward Clark, from "Fakers" to "Fakirs," which is the spelling used in the original title of the article. Without this fix, the later comment "over Clark's original spelling" makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.125.107 ( talk) 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)