Talk:Jackal or Tiger?

This article seems to be nothing more than an excuse to tell a story; is that sufficient reason for an article?- leopart
 * It's a fairy tale with a verifiable history of more than an hundred years. Why would such a tale not be noteworthy?  Goldfritha 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Its noteworthyness in not an issue. The issue is whether wikipedia should be used to Tell fairytales(or any other narrative for that matter) or not. - leopart
 * A synopsis of a story is always a vital part of any article on it. Goldfritha 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and many other articles in wiki are in agreement. However many of them include more than the synopsis. Perhaps you could add some of that verifiable history to this article? Highlight the significance of this story? Explain why you call this an Indian fairy tale?Leopart 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Growing up, I loved to read the encyclopedia. We had two different sets: the Encylopedia Brittanica and another, more junior set. Both sets included classic stories and fairy tales. I think the inclusion of this story in Wikipedia is terrific. It's educational, archival, and culturally informative. Coolelle (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)