Talk:The Unicorn in the Garden
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Unicorn in the Garden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Novels / Short story / Fantasy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
The references clearly document this story being referenced in high profile science blogs and New Scientist.
Someone else has deleted this without engaging the discussion here. Anyway, let's vote and abide by the vote. Remove or keep the reference to the Lenski vs. conservapedia controversy as a cultural reference. The controversy and story has been cited widely on important science blogs (PZ myers' blog and Panda's thumb, both listed by top science journal Nature as top 5 science blogs) and notable publications (like New Scientist). I believe this qualifies it as a cultural reference. Science can have its own culture too. Mindme (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of articles have a "references in culture" section, so that in itself seems a valuable addition. The specific story has been reported by both old media (you mentioned New Scientist) and notable new media (important science blogs and podcasts). The deletion was probably political/religious in motivation, not an objective assessment of whether this fits in the article or not. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a valid cultural reference. I would suggest shortening the quotation. It strikes me as being excessive if the true purpose of the quote is to show the cultural use of "unicorn in the garden" rather than to show the slap down of Andrew Schlafly. I'd suggest including just the final sentence of the quotation. --Kommers (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Although cultural references have been increasing discouraged here, that applies primarily to unsourced references to a five second parody on a popular tv series and the like. What you have here is reasonably well sourced and probably more significant. However, I would argue that while the short story supplies context to the quote, the reverse is not true as the article stands. Might it be worthwhile to quote someone on the subject of the parallel being drawn (i.e., that Lenski is claiming that his evidence-providing bacteria are not imaginary)? But that would be gilding the lily that the unicorn ate, I suppose. --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Nobody likes a creationist, but the claim that a tiff between an esteemed scientist and a foolish hack is culturally significant leaves a lot to be desired. Cultural references would be more akin to the and allusion in writing, film, paintings, and other such products of human creativity. While Dr. Lenksi's use of this fable is clever, it fails to meet the criteria for cultural significance. While the deletion of the reference may be seen as politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, the use of the reference is clearly so--the reference is only here specifically because it berates (or alludes to) Dr. Lenski's savage intellectual beating of Creationist Hack #426346. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)