Talk:The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: JClanton12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

the boy who cried wolf
The Deep Space 9 nerd bit doesn't belong here. This sort of thing cheapens Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.180.106 (talk • contribs) 3 August 2005


 * i rather don't think so. This "sort of thing" distinguishes Wikipedia from those antiquated, conservative and obsolete encyclopedias like the one you might have. --Plastictv 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Plasticity is right. Star Trek is an important part of popular culture. The anonymous sourpuss is wrong in the sky with diamonds. Das Baz 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is but it doesn't need to pervade almost every article on Wikipedia with random out-of-context factoids. Maybe mention it in the character article or the episode article or something. Graham 87 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Any facts are fine as long as it is related and is right. I deleted the one where they said "in some version the boy was killed by the wolf". I don't mind children's death in the classic fable story if that was truly how it was originally told (like how the early version of Little Red riding hood the girl was eaten), but I have never heard of the version of Aesop's story where the boy got eaten by the wolf. Unlike other fairy tales with no definite author, Aesop's story can be traced back only to Aesop. If the original version of the story, the one Aesop's told, the boy didn't die, then that IS the version. I don't need to know the version where the wolf eat the boy, or the boy grab a knife and heroically kill the wolf himself, or Satan come and crown the boy as kings of liar. Aesop's version is THE version.

The moral "Never tell the same lie twice" is proposed by Garak the Cardassian in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Erudil 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding  Das Baz, aka Erudil 04:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)  It is not unsigned. Erudil is my signature.Erudil 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

request
could you send me the script of the boy who cried wolf because i'll use it for our play in school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.184.114 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2006

You can create your own script by using your imagination! Also, the actors who play the boy, the wolf, the villagers and the sheep can be given some freedom to ad-lib. Also, at the end of the show the characters can discuss what exactly is the moral: Never tell a lie, never tell the same lie twice, or save lies for when you really need them? Then have the Wolf who cries Boy interrupt and disrupt by crying "Boy! Oh Boy!" But if you really want people to send you scripts you should include an e-mail address or the snail-mail address of your school. Das Baz 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a less threatening version, you can have the wolf steal and eat some cookies (borrowing from the Sesame Street version) instead of sheep. If you want a more frightening version, you can replace the wolf with the Chupacabras. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cassandra's Innacuracy
In the "see also" section we encounter the statement that Cassandra "made inaccurate warnings but was not believed". The whole point of the Cassandra myth is that her warnings were ACCURATE but not believed. I've changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.126.54 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra made true warnings and was not believed. The prophecies always came true. She is the exact opposite of Jonah, who made a prophecy that was believed and therefore did not come true. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Elim, Ricky and the Kids
The children agree with Elim Garak and Ricky Gervais: The story does not teach one to be truthful, It teaches that one needs to be innovative and creative with one's lies, not repeat the same old fib ad nauseam. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An Appeal for Truthfulness
The source cited in footnote five clearly states that the children lied a bit more after being exposed to the fable. If someone knows of a study with a different conclusion, then they should add a footnote citing such a study. But please do not do violence against truthfulness by claiming a study has a conclusion which it does not have! Das Baz, aka Erudil 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sensationalism hides the truth of what is being argued in this experiment, which is about the methodology of moral education. I have amplified the report on the book so as to set the balance right. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The footnote is no longer footnote five. It is now footnote 3. Whatever else, let us please keep the facts accurate. Das Baz, aka Erudil 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An objection to mention of this experiment has been raised by Johnhay57 that it is 'a political and unproven claim ... rejected by many educators' and that it 'has no place here unless the alternate view is also published'. He is at liberty to cite the evidence he claims, but not to delete a sourced statement without discussing it here first. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another Boy, another Wolf
A notable contrast is the tale of Peter and the Wolf. Unlike the cowardly and mendacious shepherd boy, Peter is brave and truthful. Das Baz, aka Erudil 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

why
doesn't this article have the actual story on the aticle? all i see is what its about and history not the story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.183.168 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing trivia
I am removing the 'popular culture' section for the following reasons: The suggested guidelines on including this sort of material are at WP:HTRIV. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It consists of a mere list and makes no attempt to explain in what way these allusions to the fable are significant.
 * 2) They are unreferenced and count as WP:OR. References should comment on the subject's impact on popular culture.
 * 3) The main focus in the section is not on the subject of the article but on the shows themselves. Listing performers is irrelevant to the article, which is about the fable, its history and interpretation.
 * 4) No attempt has been made to clean up the section since the trivia tab was posted.
 * 5) A list such as this serves as a magnet for more trivia, as has already happened.
 * I agree; well done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Boy Cried Wolf"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Plan of Action to Revamp the Article
Hello, my partner and I will be adding to the article to make it more robust and useful to users.

Revised Plan of action
Our first step is to find resources to draw from, which will be done for our assignment. Then, we would like to use the information we were able to find to see how we can incorporate it into the article in a beneficial way. We would like to also focus on specific themes in The Boy Who Cried Wolf as well as other references/homages to the story itself. This may include brief references, skits, productions, movies, animations, and more. Then, we will add headings and research for these topics, and if we find another section needs to be added we will add it. We will split this up so that we can get more done efficiently and effectively.


 * This looks like a school assignment to me. It would be a good idea to look at the section "Removing trivia" above and also at WP:TRIVIA before researching most of the things you mention. You need to keep the article relevant and it would be a pity to waste your time and get a failing grade for not doing so. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * it is an assignment we are doing for one of our classes on media use. We have talked to each other and refined what we were going to include. We are going to add more to what the fable actually is since we think more details can be included. This may wind up being included as a synopsis kind of section. I am including more context in the historical section related to before and during the time of Aesop and the fable itself. My partner is adding about research done about the fable and the cherry tree, and we are going to add a critical analysis/reception to the fable. Depending on what we find, we may add info on symbolism/animals in fables (possibly a sentence somewhere if we find something relevant), the purpose of the use of the fable, and connotations within the fable. We are hoping that is more in line with the needs of the article. JClanton12 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits Being Made
Hello, My partner and I will be moving over our edits made to the Wikipedia article. We kept 95% of the original text, and the other 5% we just rephrased or added words. Feel free to take a look at what we've done so far in my sandbox, or you can make comments on the talk page once we add the edits. We added information the fable itself, the history of the fable, and made a section titled modern applications with more info on the comparison study and adult interpretations. We will transfer our stuff over in small edits. We're excited about the changes we're making because we think they will really add to the article! JClanton12 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Svasia (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your recent additions indicate you know nothing about proper formatting in WP - see MOS:SECTIONCAPS. Again, plot summaries should be concise - WP:PLOTSUM, because this is an encyclopedia, not a playground for amateur story tellers. Your course leader has said that you should acquaint yourself with the medium and you have failed to do so. Any more inept work like this will be immediately deleted. Why don't you get your supervisor to comment on your sandbox drafts before transferring? Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

False positive
I've created a See also section with a wikilink to the false positive article because the fable is an example of someone claiming something happened which didn't. The fable is to me a case of false positive, but I didn't want to edit war. My edit is here. MonsieurD (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The fable is to me a case of..." - that's what is wrong with the edit. One needs to be led by WP:SOURCE in these articles and there appears to be nothing immediately relevant in the section to which you were making a link, so your edit would count as WP:original research. For it to be allowed, there would need to be a referenced statement within this article that identifies the fable as an example of "an error in data reporting". Since the article to which you link comes under Wiki Projects statistics and medicine, to me your edit seemed WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think your argument works for see also sections, though. There are typically no references in these sections. I won't fight it if people think it's not related, but it seemed to me the fable is a good example of a false positive. For what it's worth, here is a link making the analogy. MonsieurD (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well discovered! Unfortunately a blog connected to a commercial operation does not pass as an authoritative source for an encyclopaedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be much preferable if a reputable source can be cited that makes that connection. That could then be integrated into the article itself. IMO however, the lying aspect is more significant here than the false positive aspect, which is mainly applied to medical and other scientific tests. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Musical versions
The most famous of all? Prokofiev’s… ELSchissel (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf is unrelated to the story about the boy who cried wolf. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert of edit changing section heading "The fable" to "Overview"
User:Sweetpool50: Hello. Why, in your opinion, is the heading text "Overview" inaccurate? The article is about the fable; the section in question is an overview of the fable itself. I did this to avoid a redundant heading. If you have any better suggestions for that heading's text, please feel free to state them. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I contest that the heading was inaccurate. Back in 2011, I (under another name) and a fellow editor with a common interest in fables drew up a set of guidelines on the Aesop's Fables talk page. We particularly noted that many readers just wanted to know the plot and, if that was not provided with an obvious heading, would resort to amateur (and unsourced) story telling of their own. Some 200 fable articles now exist, most of them with a heading like "The Fable" for the guidance of such readers. I would therefore contend that the suggested change to the heading here is disruptive of a standard format of articles in its category. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese legend.
Should the story of King You of Zhou be mentioned on the page? Omeganian (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alarm Fatigue
I’m just wondering if we can add a reference to alarm fatigue? Just wondering, because it’s definitely a phenomenon that applies to this fable. Hacker1 (talk). 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:RS, WP:OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)