Talk:The Fox and the Grapes

A note

Why not compare a couple of classic versions of this fable, instead of offering this pedestrian rehash? Not even fable is Wikified. --Wetman 08:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Might also want to add a note about how the phrase is often misused. Although similar, the phrase is often used generally to describe any jealousy. --alpha5099 02:04, 14 May 2005 (EST)

Merged (2008) Sour grapes article into here The Fox and the Grapes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Old talk page for Sour grapes is here

The old "Sour grapes" article will be made a dab page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sour or unripe grapes?

The section discussing this point has been deleted for two reasons. One is that it largely consists of unsourced speculation. In addition it refers only to Greek versions of the fable, while in the Latin of Phaedrus, with which the majority of translators would be more familiar, the grapes are referred to as both unripe and sour. However, there does seem to be evidence that La Fontaine incorporated a sly sexual reference into his version of the fable. The point about double meanings has accordingly been added to the section dealing with that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

idiom

Part of the article read, "The English idiom sour grapes which develops from the story is often misused of envious disparagement to others but what the fable describes is purely subjective behaviour. (emphasis added)"

I rewrote this to, "The English idiom sour grapes which develops from the story is often also used for envious disparagement to others but what the fable describes is purely subjective behaviour."

because an idiom is a social construct--it can no more be commonly misused than a word can be commonly misused. When most people agree on an idiom--it is correctly applied. However, in any case, if you want to claim that the idiom "is often misused" you really need a citation because the idea that this is a misuse is novel even if the main interpretation is not novel and this is not consistent with the main interpretation. See WP:OR. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that language (not just idioms) is a social construct, something that was drummed into me at university! I have rephrased your revision so as to highlight where the movement in meaning has come from. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance?

Shouldn't that be rationalization?--CRConrad (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Or denial. Rather than admit the pain of wanting the grapes he cannot reach, the fox denies they are desirable. Seems far too overanalysed (and unattributed) to go in the heading. --Hugh7 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this 1000%. It's completely unnecessary and redundant to the rest of the article. "Cognitive dissonance" is one of the most overused, pseudo-intellectual phrases ever created. It should really be flagged as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.125.238 (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is a valid reference to discussion of cognitive dissonance in relation to the fable, and mention of it is therefore justified. Opinionated rants from editors too ignorant of WP procedure even to know how to sign their interventions are, however, deprecated and unwanted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The comments about "cognitive dissonance" are sourced as from "one commentator". That is not adequate. I think a source should be specified, or the section deleted. The cognitive dissonance section is on the margins of the topic, so I think it should be sourced or removed. Pete unseth (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Illustration placement

I tried moving John Rae's illustration to the lede, since the article lacked an introductory image and it was odd to have it centred in the next section, but was told by User:Mzilikazi1939 that I was being "insensitive" and that my attempt to make the article look like all the other Aesop articles on Wikipedia was "dull conventionality". It's been reverted again as being "POV", the implication presumably being that my POV is wrong and Mzilikazi's POV is right. Can I get a third opinion, or a clearer explanation from Mzilikazi? Is there a reason why the picture can't serve as an image of the article as a whole, or why it should be unconventionally centre-aligned? --McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

McGeddon reverted quoting WP:LEADIMAGE as a reason. This guidance merely states what is common practice but not a general rule. In this case the illustration, which appears immediately below a short lead, would not work so well with a right placement since, to my eye, the fox in the corner is almost lost, given the mechanics of peripheral vision. Centre placement is provided for in formatting and, given the curving upper frame, seems to work best this way but, obviously, would look odd in a lead position. I hope any response will take this into account. Go here to see what McGeddon's 'insensitive' reversion looks like and judge for yourselves whether it is an improvement. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it looked absolutely awful where it was. Huge break in the flow of the text and ugly whitespace either side of the image. Just bleurgh. No good reason to have it there and plenty of good reasons to follow guidelines and put it to the right side of the lead. GDallimore (Talk) 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work on finding the new image. This is a much clearer illustration of the story. --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede too short

Hello, Mzilikazi1939. I find that your recent rewriting of the lead section makes it substantially worse. Someone arriving to the article and reading only that section would leave with an insufficient understanding of what the fable is about, where its name comes from, or why it is a well-known topic - in fact they would leave with barely any information at all. The WP:LEDE guideline advices us to write the lead section as a miniature article on its own; yet the current lede would barely survive even as a stub - it doesn't even say that "The fox and the grapes" is a fable. Diego (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Copying here the reasons Mzilikazi1939 gave at my talk page for reverting my partial revert: Diego (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1. The section on cognitive dissonance originally stood there without mention in the body of the article and I therefore moved it down and provided a succinct summary that also took in other comments on the fox's mental attitude in other sections.
2. There is discussion of the fable's plot before a summary is given
3. Jacobs is an unreliable source and the moral he gives is spurious and not in the Greek and Latin versions.
4. Overlinking is discouraged in WP guidelines.

Note that I have respected your movement of the "cognitive dissonance" idea to a new section. Have you read what I actually wrote? In my version, the first thing in the lead is a one-sentence summary of the fable, as it should be - given that the first section in the article is the fable's description, the lead should reflect that structure. As for the link to vine, lead sections admit a higher number of links, and per WP:JARGON it's important to define the terms that are relevant to the topic - it's all there in the guideline. I'm OK with removing Jacobs if it's unreliable, but we still should summarize the analysis and reception of the fable with some of the references available in the body. Diego (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be more or less agreed on the refashioned lead so far, which is good. One of my objections to overlinking is that in many cases on WP it assumes that the article will provide a dictionary definition when frequently (Vine is an example) it is confusing. I am not sure that fox needs a link, when we are dealing with an anthropomorphised beast. And in any case, if a reader's linguistic competence is so weak, surely they will stick to WP in their own language? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fox and the Grapes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017034056/http://www.john-whitehead.co.uk:80/objects.htm to http://www.john-whitehead.co.uk/objects.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Fox Who Lost His Tail

Should it be mentioned as a variant? The general idea does appear very similar. Omeganian (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a completely different fable separately indexed by Perry. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)