Talk:Nature fakers controversy

Comment

Incredible story. That is, that the public perceived Seton et al. as more than fiction. Did they, really? I read Seton in childhood and Lobo seemed "as real" as tripods from Mars. But it was 1970s, not 1890s. Perhaps the article needs more insight into how did contemporary readers perceive those stories, did they actually took talking wolves for a fact etc. NVO (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll see if I can add more "real world" reactions to the alleged "nature faker" stories. Although I don't remember Lobo et al talking, they certainly do seem fantastic in today's reckoning, don't they?. :) Thanks for the suggestion! María (habla conmigo) 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nature fakers controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review) Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

This is a well writing article as well as extremely entertaining. To think that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and the tenets widely accepted in his life time! You have done a good job of summarizing the Nature fakers controversy. (Today we would never ascribe all animal behavior to "instinct".) Excellent work!

I have done some minor copy editing. Feel free to revert any errors.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused: }

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much for your review and your careful eye in fixing my silly typos, etc. I especially appreciate your general interest in the subject matter; I admit "nature faking" isn't well known at all, but that you found the article "extremely entertaining" despite that fact gives me hope. :) Thanks again! María (habla conmigo) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting and well-written article. Salopian (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the introduction. In "... argued as to the veracity of their examples ...", "as to" doesn't tell us whether they argued for or against. I infer from what seems most reasonable to me that they argued for. If so, then a simpler statement would be better: "defended the veracity...", for instance. For GA, this needs fixing. I hope someone knowledgeable will do it. Zaslav (talk)

Furry fandom

I wonder if the controversy may have influenced the furries of today. Both involve anthropomorphism (what a word) and furries have their own controversies and perception problems to deal with. Although the fandom is traced to more recent times, perhaps the way fans depict animals and identify themselves with "fursonas" may have at least a subliminal link to the works of Seton, Long, et al? Forgive me if that's a crazy query. --an odd name 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, Google Books has "Real and Sham Natural History" (pp. 298–309), if you'd like to link it or put it on Wikisource. --an odd name 14:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion re: Burroughs' essay! As for the furry fandom, I really don't know. My first reaction is "Oh god, ick, no, no, no", but in truth "nature faking" is something that never truly went away; writers continue to give their animal characters humanistic traits to make them more relatable and admirable to readers, especially to gain sympathy for conservation efforts, etc.; they have simply stopped insisting with such vigor that real animals are capable of fantastic things like setting their own broken leg or purposefully leading hunting dogs into the path of an incoming train. As the article states, anthropomorphizing animals started long before Seton, Roberts and London and Long, but they were the ones who prefaced their work by saying "The story you are about to read is true." Very interesting idea, though (however icky). María (habla conmigo) 14:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for your thoughts. --an odd name 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Humanistic" does not mean "human-like". I've made the necessary changes in the article. Zaslav (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's Perspective

What's the view of each side's points and accuracy from today's perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.240 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to say; this controversy isn't as well known as it once was, and is often misunderstood. This article is really meant to be about the controversy itself, as it happened and evolved, and not about the validity of each side's writings and beliefs by today's standards. So much is still unknown about the animal world, after all. María (habla conmigo) 14:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here wondering the same thing. I guess the modern expert opinion, where there is consensus, would find truth and exaggerations in both sides. For example, it's now supposed that just about all animals do in fact learn and don't just "run on instinct" entirely, and that when animal parents raise their young, they often teach them. At the same time, there's little reason to believe that (for example) a bird has ever made a cast for its own broken leg, or some of the other anecdotes. (On the other hand, birds and beavers and other animals do have a lot of innate and/or learned knowledge of construction, so maybe it's not so implausible as it would seem?) 209.158.7.191 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Relation to evolutionary thought

I do not have access to the sources but I notice that some of the debate was linked with ideas of evolution (there are two mentions of Darwin in the article) and I find that this aspect is not covered in the article. Lutts notes here that Long was a stauch anti-Darwinian. There is a letter to the editor from NY Times where an author wishes Mr Roosevelt to do away with Darwin the nature faker and there seems to have been an article examining this - Thomas R. Dunlap (1992) The Realistic Animal Story: Ernest Thompson Seton, Charles Roberts, and Darwinism. Forest & Conservation History 36(2):56-62. Perhaps those with better access to material can review and weave this aspect into the article. Shyamal (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not use blanket reversions

When an editor makes three distinct edits, you do not revert all of his changes en masse.
If you have specific objections to 2 of 3, then you may revert those two.
Why is someone who does not understand these principles overriding me? Varlaam (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between WP:OWN and retaining a certain amount quality in Featured Articles. From OWN: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership." As I explained on your talk page, Varlaam, your edits are hugely unnecessary and, in the case of one key formatting change, go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In your third edit, I guess you are referring to is the arbitrary addition of whitespace to several of the article's sections? Really, that change is so minor that it doesn't matter if it exists or not, which is why I simply reverted your three edits, rather than just the first two. The whitespace itself isn't a huge issue, but your first two edits simply degrade the article and should not stand. As such, I've removed your textual changes. María (habla conmigo) 14:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gorgeous

What a great article. Beautifully written and about as neutral as could be; I applaud your efforts here and look forward to more. Seegoon (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

The evolving view of "Nature" that sets the scene for this interesting and well written article can be given more extended treatment than the somewhat self-contradictory "A renewed public interest in nature and its promise of aesthetic and recreational enjoyment began in the United States during the late 19th century. "--Wetman (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement? Source? María (yllosubmarine) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But who was right?

This is an interesting article which goes through the topic in great detail, but there's one thing I feel is missing. Which side would today be regarded as correct? Who was right? I mean, it's slightly hinted at in the article that we now know that some of the criticisms are themselves wrong (like animals being entirely driven by instinct and unable to learn, which we certainly know to be incorrect now), but this aspect is not really touched upon. It would be a much more enlightening article if there were a section at the end reviewing the various statements of the protagonists and see what modern science has to say about their positions. --Hibernian (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, while I agree that the article would be more enlightening were it to discuss modern science, etc., the sources I've come across do not go into such detail. The sources that deal with the debate itself mainly stick to the literary side of the controversy, because it was mainly a literary debate. Consequently, this article was intended to highlight the historical debate, which both began and ended with a bang and with no real resolution -- mainly because that's what the sources dwell on. María (yllosubmarine) 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hibernian raises a fine question. Today's thinking is not the same as that of the anti-"fakers". A nice example from the article: "Burroughs' critique of the book ... stressed his belief that animals were governed by instinct, rather than instruction or intuition." Nowadays we accept that some animals teach their young and that there is some level of thinking going on. I don't believe we can say what that thinking is. If someone can add a modern perspective on the controversy, it would add a lot to the article. Zaslav (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I also believe it could use some kind of current perspective on the subject. Although I don't have the answer, I'd like to suggest two possible paths to look for references we could use: a) most scientists probably wouldn't bother quarreling with fiction writers nowadays; and b) the debates between Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant and Karl Pilkington, which have been broadcasted first as podcasts in the UK and now as an animated series airing on HBO, seem to often revolve around this very particular controversy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote anybody or any product in any way as a fanboy would do. I just would like to ask if anybody else has made the same correlation I have, and if you have, whether you believe it fits in notability guidelines or not. It's not just one episode or the other either - it's a very recurrent theme. Ebacci EN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree that a modern perspective would be interesting, but I have not come across sources that delve into that area. I'm not too familiar with the show, but Gervais et al is not the path to take -- they are comedians, not experts, and their material is for comedic effect. Because this is a Featured Article, we should strive to include only the highest quality reliable, third party sources that specifically address the subject (nature fakers/fakery). María (yllosubmarine) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Call of the Wild

I was wondering if Jack London's novella The Call of the Wild was ever mentioned in the Nature fakers controversy? After all, it was published in 1903 (right in the middle of the controversy), was immediately popular (more so than the other books you cite), is told, more-or-less, from a dog's viewpoint, is sympathetic to the dog and details his transformation into a wild but noble animal. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the sentence about Jack London. I would still like to know if CotW was ever considered as an example for either side. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article covers TR's criticism of White Fang, but I don't remember if Call of the Wild was mentioned specifically in the sources. London was probably the most notable author criticized in all of the debate, but unlike some others he didn't fight back. His essay titled "The Other Animals" was his only official word on the subject, and it came out a year after the controversy was put to bed. Therefore, he definitely made less of a splash than Long and Seton. María (yllosubmarine) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The literature itself?

So we have an article about the controversy about that genre of literature, but we don't really have an article about that genre of literature itself.

This one briefly examines the genre by citing the precedent of Aesop's Fables but that's about it.

Maybe an article on the history of animal literature from Aesop to "Jonathan Livingston Seagull". --23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fakir Faker

Spelling fixed in the name of the article by Edward Clark, from "Fakers" to "Fakirs," which is the spelling used in the original title of the article. Without this fix, the later comment "over Clark's original spelling" makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.125.107 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)