Talk:Wolf in sheep's clothing

Revision

The former article was largely inaccurate and without references and for this reason is being replaced. This year also all the popular allusions were (quite justifiably) deleted. A more general mention of the phrase's use could have been made and I'll do so once I've checked the words of the musical items.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What a sham! via uncle Sham

somehow you left out all the references to the Ass in the Lion's skin and in the Buddhist Jatakas and in Herodotus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Zoological 'wolf in sheep's clothing'

Today, I added the following brief paragraph 'In zoology' about the wolf in sheep's clothing strategy in zoology. I was surprised that an editor who had never edited this article before saw fit to cut it without discussion, with the summary remark that it was 'off topic'. It plainly isn't: it shows that the strategy is indeed applied directly in the lives of a variety of animal species. I suggest that we should have at least some mention of this aspect of the 'in sheep's clothing' topic in the article. We can do this with or without Latin names, if that is any impediment, but I can see no good reason why a literary article should not at least mention science. Here is the original text, which we can freely modify:

In zoology, some predatory animals use a strategy resembling the wolf in sheep's clothing, though without conscious intent. For example, some bolas spiders attract male moth-flies using sex pheromones, while Photuris fireflies give the flashing light signals used by Photinus fireflies, capturing and eating them when they arrive. Angler fishes have evolved to lure prey towards them with a bait on a fishing rod (a modified dorsal spine), and ambush the prey once it is within range.

Let's hear what other editors have to say on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the few articles on a fable that I did not originally create. Under a different name in 2010 I rescued it from becoming a dumping ground for witless "In popular culture" trivia and gave it an encyclopedic form. What helps make an article encyclopedic is keeping to the subject, and the subject here is an impossible fable about a wolf finding a discarded sheepskin and putting it on. It doesn't explain how a sheepskin came to be discarded or how the wolf managed to get it on, but it certainly does not say or imply that it was the result of an evolutionary process. Equating natural history with fiction here is off-topic. At the very least the article does not need an entire paragraph on aggressive mimicry in the insect or submarine world. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for replying. Secondly, nobody has asserted that the fable implies an evolutionary process, or equated natural history with fiction (that would not be off-topic, just incorrect); all that is being said is that the evolutionary strategy is strikingly like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that the strategy therefore deserves a mention. We should not be using emotive language like "need an entire paragraph": that is not appropriate to a rational dialogue; there is clearly a due amount of coverage; and a total of 77 words (in 3 sentences) is a modest amount in an article of well over 1000 words. The mention of "witless 'In popular culture' trivia" is also needlessly inflammatory in this context: whatever may have happened in the past, the question now is not about popular culture but the opposite, how a traditional story relates to serious biology. Thirdly, I hope your sketch of the article's history is not an attempt to imply ownership of the article; it's public property, and it should cover all aspects of the topic evenly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

More space is given to criticizing my reply than in supporting a weak case. Let me reply in kind by pointing out that the sentence "nobody has asserted that the fable implies an evolutionary process", followed by "all that is being said is that the evolutionary strategy is strikingly like a wolf in sheep's clothing", looks like trying to have your cake and eat it. It also leads into the question of whether any scholarly source has said so. Without that, the statement is WP:OR. I notice that the article on Aggressive mimicry with which Chiswick Chap has been identifying for some years comments that "The metaphor of a wolf in sheep's clothing can be used as an analogy", again without a source. A similar passing mention would have done in the case of the article here, but it would also have to be sourced reliably. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking the same. I've seen exactly such a source and will use a brief statement cited to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've supplied multiple sources supported by direct 'wolf' quotations: many different zoologists have made the comparison, with a wide taxonomic range from birds, turtles and fish to insects and spiders. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

---

References

Use–mention distinction and appropriate sources for an article on a phrase

Chiswick Chap, WP:DICT makes the point that To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). You've added multiple instances of sources *about* zoological mimicry *using* the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing" to describe the mimicry phenomenon. These sources are appropriate for the article on mimicry, but not here, because these sources are not about the phrase/idiom. I think they should be removed. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for asking. WP:DICT however concerns articles which are DICTionary definitions, not applicable here. Further, the section you quote from, "WP:DICT#Neologisms", is specifically on articles on newly-coined words, which is not the case here either. This article is about a fable used for many centuries now as a proverb, both proper subjects for a Wikipedia article. The proverb has become well-enough known to be used as the familiar epithet for two different phenomena in zoology, the subjects of the articles cited. You are actually correct that the zoology articles are not just about the phrase (as would be the case in a WP:DICT issue), but about the thing in nature that the idiom denotes, namely the forms of mimicry, i.e. it has become a name for these phenomena. The range of types of mimicry that the proverb has been applied to is of encyclopedic interest for the proverb's article; the coverage here is naturally far shorter and less detailed than Wikipedia's articles on forms of mimicry. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)