Talk:Aesop's Fables

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Comments[edit]

Changed factually inaccurate information: Babrius wrote in Greek, not Latin, as his own page gets right. —Nathanbethell

This article says about Babrius: "Current opinion is that he lived in the 1st century CE" The wikipedia article on Babrius says 2nd century AD. Can someone knowledgeable resolve this inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsseung (talkcontribs) 12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed all the text that sounded like a review. Sorry, Brenna, but Wikipedia is not a review forum. Also, on Wikipedia we don't sign our work (except comments like these). —Frecklefoot 20:11 5 Jun 2003 (UTC) I don't get it. Why would he be a slave and a story teller. He could have made money and bought his way to freedom and just been a story teller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.101.21 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merge Aesop and Aesop's Fables[edit]

A hash of the material has been made by a well-meaning editor attempting to separate an (apocryphal?) Aesop from Aesop's Fables, There is no Aesop aside from the Fables and there is no single canonic collection of Aesop's Fables, to the surprise of many. I am putting 'merge' suggestions on both articles, so that we can build one strong inclusive introduction to Aesop's Fables as a unified phenomenon. --Wetman 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

(Why? Am i the 'well-meaning editor'? :) ) There were indeed some evidences suggesting the existence of Aesop. To deny it totally would not be NPOV. i personally think Aesop would warrant an article of his own; while his fables (true, many versions abound but so are the Holy Bible, Analects and many other more serious works that have survived the ages) deserve another. In short, i'm against merging. --Plastictv 3 July 2005 04:02 (UTC
To discuss the reports of the legendary "Aesop" as an aspect of the phenomenon Aesop's Fables is sensible. "To deny it totally" would be jejune. "His fables" is vacuous: "his who"? Babrius? La Fontaine? The sources concerning the Fables, which one might read before editing the articles, are all at Aesop, not here. Editing is meant to improve texts. --Wetman 3 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
... I realize I ought to know these things, but what exactly does "jejune" mean? As for my own two cents, I think there's enough evidence to provide a reasonable doubt of the claim that "there was no Aesop", in which case, just putting information about Aesop in this article would, uh, make it two long. --Yar Kramer 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Just prove it yourself by trying a write a 300-word paragraph on "Aesop" without mentioning Aesop's Fables. See? Discussion of "Who was Aesop?" would make a very sensible section of the article Aesop's Fables. The various contributors to the Fables, like Babrius, should be discussed and linked. The claim that "there was no Aesop" is a part of the story : have you read a good preface to a collection of the Fables? But, is there a secret fear that might be expressed as, "If there's Aesop's Fables but no "Aesop", then is there a Gospel of Luke and no "Luke". A reasonable fear, but an entirely separate question.... --Wetman 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
i get what you're saying now. Aesop should be part of Aesop's Fables, right? i agree with you. But deep down i'd like to believe in the existence of Aesop, perhaps in the same way kids believe in Santa but what does it matter? :) Please go ahead and merge the articles. --Plastictv 06:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge these articles. they are seperate topics and by adding more and more information to one article, it makes it harder to find a specific thing. it will just cause trouble for researchers and people using this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livilu211 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Under Clarifying the Distinction... below I have suggested the alternative approach of using selected details from one article in another as better than merging and wholesale transfer of material. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fox and the Crow[edit]

that "see also" link refers to a cartoon show

The Frog and the Scorpion[edit]

The Frog and the Scorpion is listed as one of Aesop's fables, but on the main page of the former it is stated that this is "mis-attributed" as an Aesop's fable. Seems to me that more information should be presented in either case. 24.116.118.202 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aesop" is a phantom: the authentic question is, where did this fable appear in the compilations, such as that by Babrius? --Wetman 07:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?[edit]

The link called "Stories that have been called "modern Aesop Fables"" seems nothing but a flagrant case of book promotion. What else could you call it? It takes you to a page that advertises a book you can buy. As far as I know the function of an encyclopedia is not advertising products you can tenuously link to something more famous, so I removed the link. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert and while you're at it also add all the other books of fables you can find on Amazon, say, and don't forget to include a direct "add to shopping cart" to make the encyclopedia a more convenient shopping experience.

that "Sanskrit" version...[edit]

I have been curious to see who added the assertion that La Fontaine's Fables were "partly inspired by the Aesop's Fables, although he acknowledges that the greatest part of them is inspired by the original Sanskrit version." La Fontaine makes no assertion even remotely resembling this in his Préface, which I have now linked to the article. It was User:Deeptrivia we have to credit, in edits made on 1 July 2006. A test of our alertness, no doubt. One that we have failed to detect for over a year. Is the following, added at the same time, also bogus: "A strong similarity exists between the Aesop's fables and some stories in the Panchatantra, which was translated from the Sanskrit original into Syriac under the name Kalilag and Damnag."? One may wonder. --Wetman 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there was something in Ben E. Perry's introduction to Babrius and Phaedrus about how Aesop's fables were introduced and assimilated into the Indian tradition thereby explaining the similarities to the Panchatantra. I'll look it up. Poshzombie 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Maybe even a quote... --Wetman 10:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. May need different formatting though.Poshzombie 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

dubious link[edit]

The "Robert Temple" link leads to an entry about Robert K. G. Temple, author of _The Sirius Mystery_. I believe that this is a different person than the translator. 128.147.28.1 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personification -vs- Anthropomorphism[edit]

In the article it says,

Aesop's Fables have become a blanket term for collections of brief fables, usually involving personified animals.


and the word "personified" is linked to Personification. Wouldn't Anthropomorphism be a better choice? In that article under the section "Literature" it even talks about this as related to Aesop's Fables. --Doug talk 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender[edit]

The article almost consistently refers to Aesop as male, apart from the picture at the top of the article. Which is correct? Stormcloud (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The old man on the frontier lost his horse[edit]

[1] attributes "The old man on the frontier lost his horse" to Aesop yet the story does not appear to be mentioned in the article. Is that link misattributing the story (at which point, I wouldn't expect to see it in this article, anyway) or does wikipedia just not contain any discussion of that story? TerraFrost 08:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merge from Aesop among the Jews[edit]

I've put a tag suggesting a merge from Aesop among the Jews, because much of the content of that article is already summarised here, with the benefit of 100 years more scholarship.

It would be good if somebody could seriously go through the Aesop among the Jews article (which, being a straight import for the 1906 JE, takes no account of this article existing), and consider how much of it really ought to stay there, and how much is already better treated here. At the moment that whole article is a very odd read, and feels very "unwiki". It could really do with a sympathetic editor to contextualise and focus the material much better, relate it much closer to here, and generally make it a better-guided read. Jheald (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) dont merge the two. one makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livilu211 (talkcontribs) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge these articles. they are seperate topics and by adding more and more information to one article, it makes it harder to find a specific thing. it will just cause trouble for researchers and people using this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livilu211 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Under Clarifying the Distinction... below I have suggested the alternative approach of using selected details from one article in another as better than merging and wholesale transfer of material. I have copied this message here and the one above from the consideration of much the same subject in an earlier strand. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Having attempted the editing suggested, I have found the article on Aesop Among The Jews virtually unusable. The material is out of date, unsourced and obscure to a general reader. I have therefore recommended that it should be deleted altogether. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

someone please edit the Origins section[edit]

would someone be so nice to edit the origins section, it's confusing and could use some clarity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint (talkcontribs) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the distinction between Aesop and Aesop's Fables[edit]

I want to reopen this discussion - the topics and material in these two articles are hopelessly intermixed. I don't think they should be merged - both are already overlong - but all the material on the fables (which make up most of the article on Aesop) should be moved to Aesop's Fables.

The article on "Aesop" should:

Point at the beginning to the article on the Fables;
Discuss the possibility that there was a historical Aesop;
Explain that most of the stories we have of his life are almost certainly mythical, and go through the sources chronologically and systematically.

The article on "Aesop's Fables" should:

Point at the beginning to the article on Aesop;
Explain at the beginning at they come from very heterogeneous sources and that there is much debate about the various lines of transmission;
Go through the sources we have for the fables chronologically and systematically.
Since there's so much information, much of it should be spun off to separate articles (some of which already exist) on Phaedrus, Babrius, the prose Romulus, etc. Probably the various surviving anonymous Greek collections shouldn't be a separate article but should be discussed fully in "Aesop's Fables."

Thoughts? 207.68.240.26 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


My inclination is to find an either/or approach limiting, where making the option both/and can be enriching. Obviously 'Aesop' needs an article of his own and in it belongs some consideration of the fables attributed to him, especially since there are possible links between the material of the fables and the narrative developed around the life of their supposed creator. However, the article dedicated to the Fables must, as is suggested, concern itself chiefly with the possible origin and line of transmission of the material. Equally obviously this will generate spin-off articles on some of the transmitters (Phaedrus, Babrius); on the development of seperate transmissions and adaptations (Aesop among the Jews is an article discussed above); and on the seperate fables and how they change under given circumstances (e.g. The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse presently looks at this).

As is proposed above, what is necessary are

  • 1 a clear understanding of the scope of each article
  • 2 proper procedures to ensure that focus is maintained

Material from each will have its place in some of the others but should fit within the parameters set for them. A look at Aesop among the Jews suggests that much in the first section about the origin of the Aesop Fables need not be there and a link to the article on the Fables would be better than to go over old ground (in this case seemingly using out of date and conflicting scholarly sources). Some of the facts about the parallel development of a 'Jewish Aesop' have their place in the Fables article but only where it has relevance to its parameters.

I would not be in favour of a wholesale shifting of sections of articles as they stand now to some other location. Editing down what is there and providing links to articles where there is a fuller account seems to me the better approach. Individual editors might keep an eye on these articles with this in mind to provide such editing and direct contributors to the more appropriate articles for their material where necessary. Looking at the long span of discussion on these topics, I do not anticipate an immediate seismic shift! However, I have made a start of my own by filling out the Translation and Transmission section with some selected material from the Phaedrus article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited Origins and Transmission sections[edit]

In attempting the systematisation suggested above, I have deleted whole paragraphs and wish to give the reasons for doing so.

  • 1) Two paragraphs on origins repeated themselves in discussing ancient sources for the fables. Besides which, such discussion is best developed in the article on Fables generally.
  • 2) Treatment of Babrius is slimmed down and updated; there is an excellent article on him on WP if people want to know more about him.
  • 3) I deleted the long comparison between Caxton and Henryson. While interesting in itself, it has no place in an account of the transmission of the fables and unbalances the flow of the narrative.

These changes have been made in order to focus the article on the subject of the development of the Aesop material and to give a (very general) idea of the uses to which the fables were put. A wider consideration of the latter, and of their origin, can be developed in articles on the individual fables. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Perry's judgment on the wholly Greek origin of the fables is stupidly extreme and, 50 years on, as woefully out of date as were Joseph Jacobs' speculations at the end of the 19th century. Going to the opposite extreme and quoting the dubious opinion of a member of the Theosophical Society as responsible scholarship is not helpful either. Furthermore, identifying the protagonist of the 7th century CE work Barlaam and Iosaphat (a deformation of 'Bodhisattva') as the origin of the name Aesop over a millennium earlier is so colosally irresponsible as to take the breath away.
On Wikipedia both sides of a question deserve airing, so long as there are valid sources for them. Simply deleting one opinion and quoting something as extreme and founded on pure Point of View goes against all its guidelines. Hopefully those who feel they have something to contribute on the question of origins will discuss the matter here first. If they prefer to argue from opinionated and poorly substantiated prejudice instead, their changes will be reverted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Italicization for fables?[edit]

Why are the titles of the fables presented in italics? They are not major works. Some last barely a paragraph. Would it not be more appropriate to present them in quotes, like other short works, such as short stories and short poems? Robert K S (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Can't please everyone2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Can't please everyone2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 12, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day
"The Man That Pleased None"

"The Man That Pleased None", from Walter Crane's 1887 illustrated book The Baby's Own Aesop, a collection of Aesop's Fables retold in limerick format. Aesop lived in Ancient Greece between 620 and 560 BCE, and his fables are some of the most well known in the world, remaining a popular choice for moral education of children today. Crane, a member of the Arts and Crafts movement, popularised the child-in-the-garden motifs that would characterise many nursery rhymes and children's stories for decades to come.

Restoration: Lise Broer
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Hi, Howcheng. I've replied to your request on my talk page. Rather than edit your note, I'll repeat here that the picture you feature can be found at the foot of the Walter Crane article. But if it's really necessary that it appears in the context of the fables, then an article on "The man who pleased no-one" (or at least a stub) should be created in order to feature it. I'm pressed for time at the moment and can't promise to do the research myself. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with having Walter Crane as the highlighted article is that it only appears in a gallery there. There's more context in this article, especially when paired with the part about the fables being retold in limerick format -- in that sense, it's helpful to have an example of one of those limericks. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so create the article I suggest. I'll fill it out once I have the time to do some research. But by then I guess the date when you're exhibiting the pic will have passed. Another compromise is to have that pic exhibited in the Aesop's Fables article ONLY on the 12th. Would that work, or would it have to stay there because the pics and notes are archived? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject, as foreseen, was complicated. The article was eventually created between 26 Feb and 5 March 2011 under the title The miller, his son and the donkey. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

General guidelines on creating and editing Aesop Fable articles[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure where this goes, but here will do for now.

As more and more articles are created and improved, perhaps those involved need to sketch out ideas on what we believe makes a good Aesop fable article?

This wouldn't be a policy or "written in stone" of course, and much of what makes a good article is general to all articles.

For me, what I'd like to see is the list below. I'm not suggesting there should be standard section headings, more what I'd hope to see include in an article. I'm also not suggesting that articles will have all these things at first, or even that all of these will always be possible, but as an article evolves, if they can be included I think they should be.

  1. A sourced retelling or summary of the fable
  2. A history of its development going back especially to the earliest sources
  3. Examples especially of the fable outside Europe and the English-speaking world (which are harder to come by and so could be neglected)
  4. The fable in the visual arts
  5. The fable in music and performing arts
  6. The fable in popular culture (not a mere list of small bit-part appearances however)
  7. At some point in all this, perhaps a little in each of the above there can be discussion of the interpretations put on the fables. Obviously these should not be the editor's ideas but sourced interpretaions from others
  8. There should be images illustrating the fable spaced around the article. These should, across the range of fables, represent the range of illustrators, not focussing too much on particular artists. They should represent a range of artforms, across all the fables. Images of ancient artworks and images of artworks outside Europe are particularly valuable.

Well, that's what comes to mind at first, and I'd like to see other people's thoughts. I am fairly sure that I'm not way off the mark in my ideas because the articles that have been worked on do tend to have these things. Look for example at The Tortoise and the Hare which has been worked on for a long time and recently and it has all of this and more.--Annielogue (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This contribution seems to continue the discussion above under the heading "Clarifying the distinction between Aesop and Aesop's Fables" that was started in March 2010 and which proposes principles that should guide editors of articles on this subject area - and, by extension, of fables and folk tales in general.
My own contribution here would be further consideration of the policy on illustrations. It would be helpful if they directly illustrate points made in the article or even contribute to the argument there. Examples are the analysis of the pictures by Lefevbre and Doré in The Ant and the Grasshopper and the way the Milo Winter picture complements the section on musical settings. In addition, pictures need not be artefacts. The photograph of 'the noble cockerel' in the article on The Cock and the Jewel, and of two pigeons facing in opposite directions in The Two Pigeons are witty extensions of the articles in which they appear. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - the illustrations serve best when there's a close link to the development of ideas in the text. --Annielogue (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One other thing. Since articles involve a wide range of dates, and many countries and cultures for which Christian dating is inappropriate, all dates should be given as Common Era (B/CE). Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether CE dates should be used is currently being debated on the Aesop talk page. I propose that this article too should follow the conclusion reached there but would be interested to hear reasons for and against. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA[edit]

Seems there's an edit-war going on concerning the use of different era styles in the article. Consistency is important, and I don't really care which one is used but the edit-warring doesn't help. Before changing it further, please reach a consensus on which one to use per WP:ERA ("Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change.") WP:DATERET might be useful in resolving this, which suggests that the existing format should be retained, and "...if an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to the first major contributor." The earliest version of the article used anno domini dating, as did the first major expansion of the article. With that in mind and for the sake of resolution I suggest that this particular era style should be used, but so long as a particular style is agreed upon I personally don't care either way. - Aoidh (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

DATERET isn't really relevant here - that's about data format, not era style which isis discussed after that. This was discussed at Talk:Aesop and agreed. WP Editor 2011 has just come along and changed the era style misrepresenting what happened. I've restored the pre WP Editor 2011 situation. Note that he has two previous blocks for violations of WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One block, sorry, the first was reverted as a misuse of tools. I've participated in discussions at the dates & numbers talk page and don't recall DATERET being used as an argument. The wording says "established style" which is vague and attempts to get this clarified in the guidelines have never succeeded. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I was going to revert myself but reading WP Editor 11's statement "Corrected flagrant breach of consensus and WP:MOS. This was already discussed at great length and was settled." his edit seems to be on the basis of the discussion at Talk:Aesop which I read quite differently. It is only because of this that I'm not reverting myself. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, you lied in this edit summary and you had clearly seen the discussion here, with Aoidh insisting on the need for consensus before changing Aesop's Fables from the status quo to Mzilikazi's hijacked version. Therefore your edit was entirely inappropriate and for that reason I'm going to revert it. The block that you refer to was for using a 1-month-old consensus as the basis to protect an article from a gang of edit warriors. Whilst it's already fallacious due to the fact that it's entirely an ad hominem argument, it's even more dubious because you yourself are trying to use the discussion on this talk page as the basis to support Mzilikazi's illegal edits. If one reads the June 2012 discussion at Talk:Aesop, they'll see a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue. How is a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue justification for Mzilikazi's latest edit war when a 1-month-old consensus is apparently so worthless that I deserved to be blocked for implementing it?
Besides, Talk:Aesop certainly wasn't the entire discussion; you're cherry-picking and you know it full well. In reality, Mzilikazi conceded defeat in the first edit war here, hence both Aesop and Aesop's Fables returned to their BC/AD state after 1.5 years of Mzilikazi bullying anyone who tried to undo his illegal changes. The status quo was protected for many months until Mzilikazi used his sock puppet Afkun to start a 2nd edit war 7 months later. Mzilikazi was the original and main trouble-maker on your side of the first edit war, Dougweller, so by completely ignoring his concession of defeat and cherry-picking evidence in an attempt to claim you won is outrageous and shows just how little value one should place on your thoughts here. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
I lied? Gee, thanks for the good faith. I wrote "Huh? clearly discussed, 4 editors !voted for BCE/CE, no one !voted against although WP editor complained (misreading the guideline". In your first revert, you wrote "Corrected flagrant breach of consensus and WP:MOS. This was already discussed at great length and was settled." So if it was discussed at great length as you said, then what was I lying about? And why did your second revert say "which had no discussion or support and was therefore out of line"? I was about to self-revert my edit here until I saw your edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I said you lied because you wrote "Huh? clearly discussed..." in response to the preceding edit summary, which was when I wrote that the one before it (so 2 edits before yours) had "no discussion or support..." You claimed the comments from June 2012 (i.e. the end of the first edit war) as this supposed discussion. The comments from June 2012 weren't justification to change the article to CE then and they most definitely are not justification for changing now. As Aoidh and the guidelines have said, you need to start a discussion if you want to change it. In February 2013, Mzilikazi and his sock puppet did not start a discussion and neither did you or your canvassed friends. Aoidh finally started this discussion yesterday; 11 months after the start of Mzilikazi's second edit war. This discussion has led to no conclusions and therefore the status quo must remain, at least for now. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
Since WPEditor seems incapable of courteous discussion, I join this one with reluctance to point out that there is a proposal to use CE dates in the thread above, dated 2011, and a following note in 2012 proposing that consensus should be in line with the discussion on the Aesop talk page and inviting views. No one took that up on this talk page, but Afkun changed BC dates to BCE on 2 February last year, almost 12 months ago. This hardly counts as an 'edit war' and I did not 'concede defeat' because the war was an imaginary one in WPEditor's mind. In the passage to which he draws attention, I wished him well as a religious duty, which is different.
I will repeat that Aesop's Fables are to be found in a wide range of cultures for which Christian dating is inappropriate and I would therefore prefer that Common Era dating be used. That is the point at issue, not the breaking of 'rules'. It would be a good idea if we could discuss that rather this squabble between ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzilikazi1939 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm capable of courteous discussion; just don't make ad hominem arguments against me or use dirty tactics and I'll always be courteous back. Mzilikazi, if you didn't concede defeat then why did you and your allies leave Aesop and Aesop's Fables alone for 8 months? As Judge Judy always says, if it doesn't make sense then it's not true. You were so determined to impose your will on these two articles that you started a 1.5-year edit war resulting in Aesop being changed 11 times (or 21 depending on how you count it) before I came along. You said the above quote and all four of you immediately stopped editing the articles; there's no denying it was an admission of defeat. 8 months later (i.e. February 2013), you went back on your word and started this second edit war. You presumably thought you could get away with it because I wouldn't notice. It's disheartening that nobody else cottoned on to your illegal edits, but nevertheless, here I am and now we have the same cast as we did in the final days of the first edit war except for Johnbod and Haploidavey, who are tainted and thus ineligible to participate because you canvassed them just like Annielogue. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
As for the issue of the talk page, you and everyone else involved in your first edit war know that the discussion (at least in the final days) took place over several different pages; no single one constitutes the discussion in its entirety. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC))
At administrators level here it is recognised that consensus has been reached for this article too. I will revert shortly. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I've went ahead and changed it since there seems to be an agreement (WP Editor 2011 notwithstanding) to use the common era style on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Aesop fables[edit]

his fables are kind i love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.86.142 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)