Talk:Sacred Cod

Pranks source

 * NYT, paywell

NYT search
See esp. re verse, and
 * 

Other junk I don't know what to do with right now

 * AFTERNOON IN HAUNTS OF THE "SACRED COD".: GREATED AND GENERAL COURT ... Boston Daily Globe (1872-1922); Jun 6, 1913; pg. 20 (Legislative fishing trip)

Facing : political significance
Is there any truth to the idea that the Cod faces north when the Democrats hold the majority and south when the Republicans do? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently not -- see last bit of . Anyway, in the last 150 years there have only been 3 changes of majority (1949, 1953, 1955) so little chance for such a "tradition" to form. Sounds like tourguide bullshit. EEng (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this to resolve the cn and found that there are multiple sources which support this idea, e.g. The Freedom Trail; Time for a Change. Today in History attributes this innovation to Tip O'Neill and so the absence of the point in an 1895 source does not seem significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The three sources mentioned could be exhibits in a textbook on unreliable sources:
 * The Freedom Trail: The actual title is The Freedom Trail: An Artist's View, and it's a bunch of watercolors with some fluffy, silly text. Here are a few boners from this one:
 * The Sacred Cod hangs in the Massachusetts Senate Chamber – Um, no, it's the House of Representatives
 * created in 1784 – No, actually, it was hung in the House in 1784. We don't know when it was created.
 * "codnapped" by pranksters from the Harvard Lampoon. Chamber business was suspended for four days until it was recovered – No, news reports are clear that business continued uninterrupted.
 * Today in History is someone's blog, and (along with the fact that it's largely taken from our very own article here on WP -- how flattering) it (among other mixups) confuses the transfer of the Cod from the Old State House to the New State House, in 1798, with the transfer from the old Representatives Chamber to the new one, in 1895.
 * Time for a Change is a 1992 book by a speechwriter fantasizing about an imminent Republican takeover of Mass politics (didn't happen, BTW), and which uses the fish's direction as a metaphor. However, since there have been only three changes in majority since the Civil War (1949, 1953, 1955), there seems to have been little opportunity for such a tradition to form, and certainly there can be no one in the State House today who can attest to any exercise of it.
 * The claim that O'Neill started this "tradition" is especially interesting. I went through several full-length personal and political bios of O'Neill, none of which mentions anything even remotely like this, except one: Tip O'Neill and the Democratic century (Farrell, 2001), which recites (p. 108, re the 1949 election):
 * One month past his thirty-seventh birthday, O'Neill became the second-youngest Speaker ever to serve the commonwealth. The wooden carving of the sacred cod that had hung in the chamber for two centuries was dusted, the stained-glass skylight with the names of all the counties was cleaned ...
 * Given this mention of the cod, then had O'Neill changed its direction after taking office, for sure that would be mentioned somewhere. But it's not -- not in this passage, not anywhere else. Nor is there anything about the cod in Tip, a biography of Thomas P. O'Neill (Clancy, 1980), which gives a detailed recitation of O'Neill's actions in his first weeks in office, including a passage specifically on what happens "when power changes hands".
 * We have, actually, exactly one actual reliable source on this: "Sacred Cod Back--And Backwards", Boston Globe, Nov 25, 1965, p. 58:
 * The Sacred Cod ... is back in its place of honor again, hanging over the center gallery in the House Chamber. It has been "on leave of absence" while being refurbished by the Modern Decorating Co. The Cod was returned to its post Wednesday -- facing backwards. Intentionally or otherwise, the famous fish -- after 70 years of facing to the north -- was rehung with its nose headed south.
 * (North is left as seen from the speaker's chair.) A bit of OR (photos since 1965) shows that this reversal was at some point corrected, and the fish has pointed left since. And similar research in dozens of guidebooks since 1895 shows that it always has -- under both Republican and Democratic administrations -- just as the Globe says. (You have no idea how many Mass State House guidebooks there are!)
 * In summary, we have exactly one RS on point (The Globe) which clearly falsifies this "tradition". The rest is bunk. EEng 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible image for Codnapping

 * I suspect that this is not the Senate chamber, but the House, and this gent is pointing to the wires which had been cut to kidnap the Cod. If that could be confirmed somehow, because of the current licensing this could only be included as an "external media" box, like the Charles Apted photo already there.  E Eng  04:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess I did put it in an External image box at some point. Still, a shame it can't be displayed directly in the article. EEng 02:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

More sources

 * More sources listed at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Sacred_Cod_of_Massachusetts/archive1. EEng 23:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Puck, April 1895 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Puck/9102AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sacred+cod&pg=PA103
 * Re Brackett repainting, colors https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Illustrated_American/9tg6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sacred+cod&pg=PA592

Image

 * This image will enter PD on Jan 1 2024: http://id.lib.harvard.edu/via/olvwork555191/catalog (see man holding sign at left)

Quote
What does this mean, and can anyone find if this source explains it better? It could be used in prose, it does not need to be a quote in the article. It makes no sense how individuals and corporations would recognize or "pay tribute" to cods...


 * "Years before the statesmen of the period had decided to make public acknowl­edge­ment of the indebted­ness of the colony to the codfish, and had voted to adorn the assem­bly chamber with a wooden repre­sen­ta­tion thereof, indi­vid­uals and private cor­po­ra­tions were eager to pay tribute to the codfish, and vied with one another in their anxiety to make the recognition as conspicuous as possible." -- "A History of the Emblem of the Codfish in the Hall of the House of Representatives." Compiled by a Committee of the House. (1895)

-- ɱ (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you can't see "how individuals and corporations would recognize or 'pay tribute' to cods" then you don't understand the subject of the article at all. EEng 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I was attempting to clean up an article that appeared to be cluttered with quotes, primary sources, and a few tangentially related images. I believe most of this is better represented as prose in the article body. There are other egregious errors; right off the bat, I noticed a windy run-on sentence at the very start of the lede. I have also noticed several tongue-in-cheek words or ways of phrasing. While the subject is amusing, many of these ways of writing about it are not encyclopedic. ɱ (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence is not a run-on; please look that term up in a dictionary. I fear you may have read so many cookie-cutter articles that you think that's the way everything's supposed to be.Beyond that, the whole point of the Sacred Cod is the faux reverence given it -- starting with its name and the bombastic, flowery prose indulged in by the "Committee on the History of the Emblem of the Codfish" of the House of Representatives of the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

2023 reenactment

 * "This fish swims upstream: Sacred Cod is carried once again from Old State House to Beacon Hill", Brian MacQuarrie, Boston Globe, January 11, 2023. "To mark the 225th anniversary of the relocation of the so-called Sacred Cod, which hangs above the House of Representative chamber, a replica of the wooden fish was taken along the original route from the Old State House to Beacon Hill." <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Gore
Sources:
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston, Samuel Adams Drake, p.72

Good Article reassement
Greetings all. I have strong concerns that this article may no longer meet the standards of a Good Article. I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics. First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, which breaks up the prose and in most cases only muddies its meaning. As we all know, MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and encourages the use of quotation only when it serves a clear clarifying or attributive function. For example, we have: I'm going to stop with the examples for now, as this is only three paragraphs and the issues are various, but if anyone fails to see how said issues continue in the body, I'd be happy to point them out. I want to approve the article and bring it up to what I would consider GA standard, but it's not feasible when all proposed edits are so forcefully (and I would argue, hostilely) rejected with the justification that it wouldn't be on the list if there were flaws. Let me know your thoughts, Cpotisch (talk) 12:19, 20 July
 * "painted to the life" in the very first sentence. I don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying.
 * "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" also in the first sentence. This is the second in a single sentence and it can be easily and more concisely paraphrased without quotation.
 * "historic and continuing symbol", ALSO in the very first sentence. This quote is attached to a broken citation, and said broken citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
 * By the way, this part of the sentence also includes the clarification 'i.e. Massachusetts', which either would be unnecessary if the prior quote were clear, or IS necessary if the prior quote is ambiguous. If this the case, the quote shouldn't have been included in the first place because it doesn't particularly clarify things! We're using a lot of words here to include material that doesn't say all that much, and would be far clearer if paraphrased. And this is all quite literally in the first sentence.
 * A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph, and we're now at four quotes in the first two sentences of the article. I also (and admittedly this is subjective, but I think it's all part of the bigger picture) disagree with the structure "if it really existed—". It seems whimsical and loose, and I don't believe that this article being about a somewhat silly subject means that every paragraph should be packed with flowery prose. Most good articles are not.
 * Furthermore, we all know from MOS:LEAD that the lead serves to introduce and summarize the article's contents. That is not happening here! The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article, and I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." Again, a needlessly confusing run-on sentence that could be made shorter and clearer if we didn't have to dedicate space to introducing and including quotes.
 * Same story in paragraph two. We have a very long inline quote about investigating the significance of the Cod. This could be trimmed dramatically to "to investigate the significance of the emblem" or paraphrased to "to investigate its historical significance." Nothing is added here by the quote and it's far too much information for the lead.
 * I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice. This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome. If we're going to use the pun, say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping."
 * Hmmm. Where to start? Well...
 * "painted to the life" ... I don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying. – To the life is a common expression meaning "exactly like the real thing", which seems very clarifying. Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills, but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".
 * Here again your googling skills may be wanting. The new URL was easily found by googling General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ch. 2 §13 (the citation given). I've updated the link, but please in future make an effort fix things like that yourself before wasting your fellow editors' time by making a mountain out of a molehill.
 * A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph – Most stuff in leads isn't supposed to carry citations; in any event the phrase "prehistoric creature of tradition" is repeated in the article body, where it is cited to "A History of the Emblem of the Codfish in the Hall of the House of Representatives", authored by the Committee on the History of the Emblem of the Codfish -- incontrovertibly the authoritative source. If you'd done a control-F for the word "creature", you would have discovered this instead of expecting your fellow editors to do the work for you.
 * The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article – False. The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.
 * The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." – First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life"). Anyway, the passage in question is
 * The Sacred Cod has gone through as many as three incarnations over three centuries: the first (if it really existed‍—‌the authoritative source calling it a "prehistoric creature of tradition") was lost in a 1747 fire; the second disappeared during the American Revolution; and the third, installed in 1784, is the one seen in the House chamber today.
 * There's no contradiction. If the first cod really existed, then it was lost in a fire; if not, then not. It's simple. A course on logic might help you.
 * The fire ... I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. – You can argue that, but it's certainly appropriate to mention that there have been three incarnations of the cod, and having done that it's natural to also tell what happened to them.
 * run-on sentence – Please look that up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life" and "unequivocating/uneqiuvocal" and "run-on sentence") so you'll know what it means. There are no run-on sentences in the article.
 * I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice – It's not in Wiki-voice; it's in quotes, as appropriate.
 * say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping. – Since you didn't mean to imply that the Harvard Lampoon was later called a Cod-napping, but you nonetheless did so, you may want to review 8th-grade English. Maybe WP:MISSSNODGRASS can help you.
 * Well, pointing out all the nonsensical critiques in your grammatically fractured list has indeed been fun, but now we must move on to the real question: exactly which of the GA criteria does the article not meet?
 * But before you answer that, please do us the favor of reviewing WP:What the Good article criteria are not. It will save us all a lot of time correcting your misapprehensions. I look forward to your answer. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)