Talk:The Old Man and his Sons

Lead
There is some dispute about what belongs in the lead. MOS:LEAD says:
 * The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

This is an Aesop's fable. That establishes context and notability.

The current lead does not summarize the most important points. In particular, it does not summarize the story at all. It emphasizes the political moral in a roundabout way ("The story has been told about many rulers.") which makes no sense without knowing what the story is, and could more directly be said as "It is often applied in political contexts." The important connection to the political mottos also belongs in the lead.

On the other hand, it includes the Perry index number, which is of interest to very few readers... and amusingly, Perry uses a different title for this story.

Leads should certainly be concise and focused. But they can be longer than three lines. --Macrakis (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Care to discuss? --Macrakis (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me refer to the definition he quotes, which states that the lead should be concise. Having mentioned the alternative title, "A bundle of sticks", it is unnecessary to add the fussy wording he wanted, especially as details of the plot follow immediately after. The article is dealing with a fable, which typically makes its point concisely. It is nonsensical to insist that the lead should treat such a narration as if it were a novel or short story. And far from being only "of interest to very few readers", the point of mentioning the Perry Index number in the lead is that it establishes that the story is commonly accepted as one of Aesop's fables; the information accompanies every one of the articles on such fables and is in line with WP:SOURCE. Fables, being folkloric, often go by different titles; two and a half millennia ago they usually did not have titles anyway and those they have now have evolved over the centuries in different languages. It seems to me that the editor is insisting on his own interpretation of guidelines and trying to force the article into a straightjacket not designed for it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss all this, but I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid tendentious language ("fussy", "nonsensical"; cf. WP:AGF) and attacking me ("trying to force the article..."; cf. WP:NPA) rather than the arguments made. See WP:CIVIL.
 * So, to the arguments:
 * I certainly agree that concision is important. Concision means saying the essential without wasting words. In my opinion, the sketch plot of a fable is essential to "the lead [standing] on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." (MOS:LEAD).
 * The lead is also supposed to be "accessible to as broad an audience as possible" (MOS:LEAD). Though of course specialists will recognize the Perry Index, I doubt that the vast majority of our readers will have any idea that it indicates that the story is commonly accepted as one of Aesop's Fables.
 * I don't understand the relevance of WP:SOURCE to mentioning the Perry Index in the lead. Of course the Perry Index is useful and relevant, but there is no requirement that sources be mentioned in the lead. Or if it is, perhaps a parenthetical mention would be better, e.g., "The Old Man and his Sons, Perry 53, is ...". Another possibility would be to mention it in an infobox.
 * I agree completely that there are no canonical titles for Aesop's fables, which is precisely why we mention multiple common titles, as well as the Perry Index. Since there are so many different titles, an infobox might be a better place to list them than the body of the article.
 * If there is a better place to centralize discussions like this which may apply to "every one of the articles on such fables", I'd be happy to have the discussion there. --Macrakis (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what it is, other than a possibly inappropriate interpretation of the lead, we are meant to be disussing. What is it that you are proposing? Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I propose:
 * a summary of the story belongs in the lead;
 * the Perry Index does not (though it belongs somewhere in the article, possibly in an Infobox);
 * the article should list the most widely used titles (and redirected here), but not in the lead.
 * And I was asking if you knew of a better place to discuss the format of articles on Aesop's Fables, for example, whether an Infobox would be helpful.
 * Not sure what you're alluding to with "a possibly inappropriate interpretation of the lead". --Macrakis (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)