This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is now of a length and detail that would justify reassessment by an administrator of the templates intruded above.
In developing the "Literary tradition" section, I have concentrated on the variety of solutions that English and French-language authors have given to Aesop's 'riddle'. The former article relied on interpretations of authors in works of criticism. There are now enough sources available on the net to point readers to the actual texts (or translations of them) so that they can check these and perhaps come to conclusions of their own. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 20:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to those of you who cleaned up after Jimp Jougler. To my mind his/her good faith changes were more appropriate to academic book editing than to this online encyclopaedia, especially in the matter of footnoted references. In addition these (and the text of the main article) were being used to import personal points of view, which is against the spirit of WP. I have therefore reverted to the previous version with its particular focus on the varying interpretations of the fable over time. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The tone of the last edit, date: 18:41, 3 August 2010, was appropriate for an encyclopedia. It also incorporated edits which had managed to retain some of the more expansive essay-like opinion of the edit, date: 08:10, 22 June 2010, by User talk:Mzilikazi1939, which had moved this to the notes, thus retaining purely descriptive material for the articles. (Even this retention was not strictly necessary, but I did not want to delete the material.) I have therefore restored my last version, but I have also made amendments and further tidied up the layout (especially cleaning up the reference links) to make for greater clarity for other users. Please do not simply revert wholesale to an older version without considering the reasons. Thanks. Stitchill ( talk) 10:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
copied from Mzilikazi1939 talk page: I thought the compression of the article made the article cogent. This time have just made some fixes to stuff that was lost that I think tidies the page up in terms of layout and have restored one or two (hopefully) non-controversial things. However, I am about to do one more edit which you might want to discuss and will call it picture caption so you can see it. Hope okay Stitchill (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. done. Reason for citation tag is not because I disagree, but because I don't understand the reference to John Ogilby or how he is relevant (not knowing anything about him). I don't feel the art-interpretation opinion about the picture really works though, either as evidence or explanation. I moved it to the picture caption, so it's not lost. Stitchill (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is now of a length and detail that would justify reassessment by an administrator of the templates intruded above.
In developing the "Literary tradition" section, I have concentrated on the variety of solutions that English and French-language authors have given to Aesop's 'riddle'. The former article relied on interpretations of authors in works of criticism. There are now enough sources available on the net to point readers to the actual texts (or translations of them) so that they can check these and perhaps come to conclusions of their own. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 20:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to those of you who cleaned up after Jimp Jougler. To my mind his/her good faith changes were more appropriate to academic book editing than to this online encyclopaedia, especially in the matter of footnoted references. In addition these (and the text of the main article) were being used to import personal points of view, which is against the spirit of WP. I have therefore reverted to the previous version with its particular focus on the varying interpretations of the fable over time. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The tone of the last edit, date: 18:41, 3 August 2010, was appropriate for an encyclopedia. It also incorporated edits which had managed to retain some of the more expansive essay-like opinion of the edit, date: 08:10, 22 June 2010, by User talk:Mzilikazi1939, which had moved this to the notes, thus retaining purely descriptive material for the articles. (Even this retention was not strictly necessary, but I did not want to delete the material.) I have therefore restored my last version, but I have also made amendments and further tidied up the layout (especially cleaning up the reference links) to make for greater clarity for other users. Please do not simply revert wholesale to an older version without considering the reasons. Thanks. Stitchill ( talk) 10:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
copied from Mzilikazi1939 talk page: I thought the compression of the article made the article cogent. This time have just made some fixes to stuff that was lost that I think tidies the page up in terms of layout and have restored one or two (hopefully) non-controversial things. However, I am about to do one more edit which you might want to discuss and will call it picture caption so you can see it. Hope okay Stitchill (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. done. Reason for citation tag is not because I disagree, but because I don't understand the reference to John Ogilby or how he is relevant (not knowing anything about him). I don't feel the art-interpretation opinion about the picture really works though, either as evidence or explanation. I moved it to the picture caption, so it's not lost. Stitchill (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)