Talk:Cultural depictions of lions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology . This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within popular culture articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep and cleanup.

No here is a section in dire need of a clean up.

Example:

1. The Three Lions was a symbol for Richard the Lionheart, and later, for England.
2. The lion holds historical significance for English heraldry and symbolism. The Three Lions was a symbol for Richard the Lionheart, and later, for England.

--62.56.75.79 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Requested move 2 Notice of revert 3 Useful page - note to self 4 Requested move 5 Headline textpoopy

[edit] Requested move

See rational I am offering on the AFD discussion page. 206.246.160.29 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha - to Cultural depictions of lions - I support such a move as it then covers mythology to modern. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of revert

When I get time I'll return the list of architecture and sculpture. The list included many, if not only, monuments and such like that are notable enough to already have articles at Wiki. If the editor who deleted the list is serious, that editor should recommend all the linked articles for deletion as trivia. If trivia was not the main issue, but lack of verification (i.e. OR), then the editor could have summarized material from the existing articles.

We currently have a gallery of images that now have no link to the text, again the editor should be systematic and remove those also. Finally, we have two lines of text that make a series of now unsupported claims. They are all true, of course, but there is not longer any verification trail via the internal links.

I am sure the editor deleted in good faith, however, it grieves me to see someone else's concise summary and easy linking to verifying material removed, and then insisted upon, without using the Talk page (ie edit warring).

The kindest thing I can say is that we overlook the standards we have already achieved at Wiki. Internal links are to topics considered notable and supported by verification. Just as we need only to click on a footnote to find a ref, so we need only to click on an internal link to see refs for a whole topic. Please stop and think about it. Wikification alone builds a clear case for notability and verifiability. To my mind there's something crazy about Wiki editors deleting Wiki links as verification. As far as I'm concerned removing Wikified text is removing sourced material.

Mind you, don't move the links to the See also section, because someone will delete them again and say policy is to write such See also lists into the text of the article. Hmmm, I'm getting dizzy going round in this circle. Someone help!

Cheers. Alastair Haines 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There were three principal things removed: a list of lion sculptures, a list of towns named after lions, and a few trivial examples of lions in heraldry. The only meaningful premise of this article is to analyze and present how various cultures have perceived lions. That is an important part of the encyclopedic aspect of the beasts. The first thing excised was removed because there is no explanation of the significance of those appearances. The second, the list of towns, is irrelevant. A town is not a depiction. However, note that an example, with cited purpose, was kept. The last references were removed because they were simply one amongst many, many heraldic uses of lions. Listing them, without context, simply isn't relevant. The appearance and significance of the lion as a heraldic beast in general, however, is important, and was kept.

I didn't remove images because it's not usually something I do.

Your arguments about the "see also" circle are fallacious. --Eyrian 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no quibble with the towns, nor the heraldic devices particularly, though I haven't thought about them. The sculptures are highly significant culturally. As I said, I will return them, and you should seek to gain consensus on this page before removing cited material, especially when your removal is challenged by another editor. Who knows, you may pursuade me. I knew the significance of half the sculptures, but a few did seem a bit "out there".

Removing verifiable content from a small article hardly strengthens it.

The See also circle is not fallacious, I've experienced that loop on several pages, from (as far as I can tell) totally independent editors. I remove entries from See also if they are in the text, and write them into the article if I can. If I remove text that includes an important link, I place that link in See also. Others, it appears, are willing to read the policy as a license to kill, but that's as may be, not our issue here.

You think the existance of the Sphinx of Giza is not notable, relevant or some kind of original research? Please expand on that for me. Alastair Haines 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx is important; but it's a sphinx, not a lion. Perhaps the existence of sphinxes deserves mention, but simply directing someone to a statue that is not of a lion isn't useful. As to the other sculptures, what do they signify? Why are they here? You're ironically right about the fact tags; but the problem is that those statements were never supported. The laundry list of implication-OR just wouldn't do it.

What I meant about the "see also" fallacy is that you are attempting to draw a contradiction from positions held by separate people. --Eyrian 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian given that you voted to delete this article I'm not sure that your contributions of wholesale removal can be taken in the good faith. As you feel this article is unworthy at all I can't see how you can discriminate over what should be kept and what shouldn't. Huge tracts of much more controversial material remains uncited and most of us are busy so jumping in with worthy refs sometimes takes a bit of time. It is easier to make a finished article from a messy one than starting from scratch. Saying that a sphinx is a sphinx is not understanding what the influences are. I am going to reorganize some stuff and it will take some time to get refs so please discuss if you are considering removing more material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look up what "good faith" means; I am acting, as always, to do what I believe betters Wikipedia. Previous good faith has no bearing on that. You're incorrect about restarting. Clean slates can be quite helpful at times.

You may wish to reread what I said about sphinxes. As an artistic trope, they predate the Egyptian Sphinx at Giza. I indicated that the phenomenon should be discussed, but that perhaps an example of a creature that is not a lion doesn't belong. --Eyrian 02:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly most of the city pages give different derivations...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due Eyrian, yes you are right, no individual editor contradicts herself, but from the perspective of one who watches an article, it makes my head spin. It's ironic watching articles lose content rather than be refined by additions. One deletes info deemed marginal, another adds fact tags to the unsupported remnant, this gets deleted because it's flagged as unsourced, someone notices images that are now irrelevant to the rest of the article, they go. Don't let Wiki detractors set the agenda! So what if there's a lot of trivia at Wiki. Maybe it draws editors in to contribute on more serious articles. Yes, Betty's Beauty Salon is not Encyclopedic, it's advertising, but tiddliwinks and bubblegum are fascinating. Wiki rocks, it takes all sorts to make a world, I wanna welcome and learn from the parochial, contemporary American pop culture is foreign and fascinating to me, and will be great documentation in 100 years time. Britannica 1911 is solid but impersonal, and culturally biased despite every effort not to be. Sorry for the rant, I guess I may run counter to the overall consensus of Wiki, but contributing editors are a kind of consensus. Please keep arguing your point passionately. But please have a little mercy on cultural contributors. </rant> Alastair Haines 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain my problem. It's not popular culture; it's uncited material. I dearly want Wikipedia to be seen as an useful, but far more importantly, reliable source. I am glad that WP covers all sorts of bizarre subjects, but it's very important that these things be verified, to ensure the integrity of the project as a whole. The problem here is that a lot of the lists were original research, or leading original research. The notion that lions always support power is, to my mind, not verified here (and never was). Particularly in the case of the sphinx, which I always understood had very different attributes from a lion, mixing symbols across cultures is very bad. That's the problem; simply referring someone to another article doesn't do anything to contextualize, which is fundamentally what culture is about. --Eyrian 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm with you on citations. And I concede that internal links are not sufficient verification on their own. I think you describe it well, the list could be viewed as suggesting support that is not actually real -- "leading OR" as you put it. The comments in the text need support (but I think I'll find it), which is why I chose the fact tag rather than deleting. Ultimately, though, the list is not really support for the text, the text was a lead-in for the list.

I must agree with you, yet again, that the list was (and probably will be) pretty arbitrary. I doubt I'll find a source that says "the 321 generally accepted examples of cultural use of lion forms in statues are: ..." In 100 years' time there'd be more I'd warrant. But my take on that is it is just as much "original research" to limit such a list to the "top ten", without a source that says what the top ten are. I'm content to allow the list to grow, as long as they are fairly notable and documented somewhere. Existing articles at Wiki seems the natural first step -- List of articles on statues with lion components, if you will. If we tried such a list, consensus would probably say just integrate them into lion or lions in culture. But enough, my head begins to spin again.

Friend, take this page off your watch-list if it offends you so much, or come back in a month to see if we've made any progress. ;) Alastair Haines 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that a list of statues of lions would be a fine idea. As to this article, I wouldn't say it offends me (any more), just that I have some concerns over whether it's growing in the right direction. --Eyrian 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we may think alike. I'm the neat kind, I would prefer a list. But I'm happy to run with what we have now, I imagine things could well be different even within a few years. As long as people don't remove content, our efforts are not in vain. For the time being, I'm just going to imagine a five-year-old who loves lions, coming back again and again to this page, because it keeps opening up whole new worlds of what people have done with the lion theme. ;) It's good to meet you Eyrian, I hope we are pushing for the same side in some issue that comes up somewhere. I love the thinkingness of editors at Wiki, as frustrating as some decisions seem to me, I rather enjoy the process. ;) Best regards (for now, bed time in Oz-stralia). Alastair Haines 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful page - note to self

useful link for later when working on this page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I think this article should me moved back to "Cultural depictions of lions" or "Lions in culture", namely because this article does not deal strictly with pop culture.-Wafulz (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headline textpoopy