Talk:Sacred Cod/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Not ready for FA

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments2 people in discussion

[These comments were posted at the FA nomination page but, having received no feedback there, I'm copying them here as well.] This article falls well short of being Wikipedia's "very best work".

The writing is far from being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" e.g.

fisherman devised a story that cod was the fish multiplied by Jesus during the miracle of the loaves and fishes. This false claim helped distinguish the two fishes' markings

fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wood was incredibly scarce during the occupation

sentence removed and section in notes now--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

the theft plan continued without a hitch

sentence is removed--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

While the Sacred Cod was dusted for fingerprints, and threats of the responsible parties being charged with "criminal trespass" and "attempted larceny", no one was ever charged for the actions of that weekend.
The Massachusetts State Police were called in to assist with the search for the cod. They went so far as to dredge the Charles River, in hopes of recovering the Sacred Cod. The authorities also found out that a member of the Lampoon staff was on board a plane heading to Newark, New Jersey. They searched Boston Airport and wired the authorities in Newark to search the plane the student was on when it arrived, but the cod was still not recovered (How about The State Police even dredged the Charles River and, learning that a Lampoon editor had flown to New Jersey, had the plane searched on landing.)

fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

On April 27, the Crimson gave the staff of the Lampoon an ultimatum; if they would not give the Sacred Cod, by midnight, to them so the Crimson could take credit for its return, the Crimson would go public with its findings. After not receiving a reply from the Lampoon, the details of theft were printed in the next morning's edition of the Crimson.

you have fixed this.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant material is included for no apparent purpose e.g.

A fire in 1747 destroyed the Sacred Cod as well as state owned records, books and paintings, and large amounts of wines and other liquors belonging to private business who used the cellars of the building as storage. The entire interior of the building was destroyed, but the brick walls were left intact and used when the building was rebuilt. (Told the entire interior of the State House was destroyed, most readers' native shrewdness will tell them that records, books and paintings would have been lost. And what do the liquor and reuse of the walls have to do with anything?)
the Atlantic cod's conservation status was changed to Vulnerable species in 1996 and it is in danger of becoming commercially extinct.

Both of these have been removed. Apparently much of the other information you deem "irrelevant" I see as interesting, engaging, and important to the story of the Sacred Cod. Please discuss before deleting entire swaths of the article on the grounds of "irrelevant."--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Inapproriate use of sources:

Stating flatly that, "To help determine the difference between cod and haddock, fisherman devised a story..." simply because a popular magazine recited this folkway is not appropriate. Anyway, the source doesn't even say that fishermen devised the story; it says the story about the origin of the markings is "part of New England mystique" and, separately, that fishermen distinguish cod from haddock via the markings.

I have included another reference to the "Cod" book by Kurlansky that also recounts this folklore story. I have removed the word "devised."--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Museum of Hoaxes website, which is cited extensively, cannot (I believe) be considered a reliable source -- it appears to be just someone's fun website. Note that it asserts something ("Traditionally, the head of the cod points at whichever party is currently in power") which the article explicitly denies.

I have replaced all the refs that you left blank when you removed this source.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Celebrate Boston also appears to be simply a commercial website without obvious editorial oversight

I have replaced all the refs that you left blank when you removed this source.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the Crimson itself participated in the incident, its own report is essentially a primary (not secondary) source and can be used as a fact source only with great caution, especially since it clearly speaks with tongue partially in cheek.

you have added multiple new references to this source including large amounts of quotes from it. I am assuming then that it is ok to use.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There's far too much "Background". All that's needed is one or two reliable sources establishing that the reason the cod hangs in the State House is its traditional importance in the area, or whatever, plus a few examples of the cod's use as a symbol in seals etc., and maybe something like the Morison quote. This isn't an article about the fishing industry -- all this detail about the number of boats and so on is irrelevant.

I have removed some background info but will comb back through it.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The photos of the Crimson building and UMass are deadweight far disconnected from the article subject. "This is the building that housed the newspaper that had an editor who was kidnapped by the jokesters that stole the cod that hung in the chambers that were in the House that Bulfinch built." Exterior photos of the Old and modern State Houses would be more appropriate.

I have replaced with mor appropriate images.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Other sources

Useful and enlivening sources are not incorporated e.g. (some of these might be in the article already, and probably most are not fruitful -- but some absolutely belong): [~~struck out~~ as incorporated into article or eliminated]

~~[1]~~ Added to article

X The sacred cod is only used in the title of this. nothing in the article is remotely related to it.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It shows that Sacred Cod is used as a synonym for Massachusetts. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[2]

X This is about the entomology of "Scrod", not the Sacred Cod.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

~~[3]~~ Added to article

X "Sacred Cod" only mentioned in a poem with no relation to anything else in the book.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly... in the context of a discussion of 19th-century Boston culture, if you are able to refer to Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots / And the Cabots talk only to God as "a poem", then I'm quite at a loss for words. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

~~[4]~~ Not usable

X I have looked at this previously and all it states is basically "The Sacred Cod is a nice carving"--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

~~[5]~~ Added to article

- Just basic information already found in the Committee reference--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? It's the earliest mention I've seen of the Holy Mackerel, plus mentions an additional painting of the Cod, by a named painter. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[6]

X About the actual fish as food, and "cod balls," not the carving.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[7] (use on license plates)

O Not about it on the license plate, but instead about the bossibility the term "Sacred Cod" is really just a mistake someoen made a long time ago when readign the words, "Sacred God". might have a place in the article for it...--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) Yes, it does mention license plates ("the Sacred Cod...sometimes pictured, totem-like, on Massachusetts number-plates"); (b) No, it doesn't conjecture the possibility that "Sacred Cod" is a corruption of "Sacred God", but rather ridicules the idea. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also:

plates mentioned in something by Lovecraft (?): [8][9]
more on plates -- mentions something I vaguely recall re Mass Motor Registrar scandal around the time of the Cod plates
[10] 1933 wire service (?) article mentions plates

[11]

X Just a list of copyrights... nothing at all.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the works listed as entered for copyright (1923, by the "Jones brothers garage") is what appears to be a travel brocure entitled "Land of the Sacred Cod". EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[12]

X Just a fleeting mention of the cod in a quote by Rachel Carson. Hardly anything of note.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Prominent use of the phrase sacred cod. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[13] (Lampoon)

X Just states that they stole the sacred cod once.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Shows Lampoon's involvement was common knowledge nationwide. EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[14]

X Can not read online.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[15]

X Can not read online.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[16]

X Can only read snippet online. It seems "sacred Cod" is only used to represent Boston. --Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[17]

O Can only read snippet online. It seems to have a little entomology of "Cod" and "sacred cod" might be worth finding in print ot check out. --Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Entomology (usually spelled, or spellt, entymology) is the study of insects. Perhaps you mean ichthyology (the study of fishes) or maybe piscatology (the art and science of fishing). EEng (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[18]

X Can only read snippet online. I am pretty sure I read this article somewhere else and it was fruitless--Found5dollar (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[19]
[20]
[21] (amusing OCR error)
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] (suggests there was debate as to whether cod should be moved to new State House)
[27]
[28]

There is far too much detail about the thefts -- exact time of recovery; order in which various parts of the State House were searched; what was worn by men jumping out of the car; that a chair, then a ladder, then wire cutters, were used; etc. -- about 1/3 of the article. Each incident should be covered in a paragraph or two at most. For example,

Three days after the theft, a search of the State House began when another phone call was received, this time by a man described as "the father of one of the students reported to have taken the cod." He explained that the students never removed the carving from the State House and they had stashed it somewhere in the cellar of the building. Capitol police searched the cellar, found nothing, then continued their search on the upper levels of the building. At 5:30 p.m. on November 17, 1968, the Sacred Cod was found standing on its tail just outside the House Chamber behind a door in a hallway used only while the House is in session. Apparently after the thieves had taken the 80 pounds (36 kg) fish down from its hanging place, they had brought it down a private staircase and left it in this hallway undamaged.

Do we really need to know it was standing on its tail? That the police searched the cellar first? The exact date and time they found it? Why not

Three days after the theft the police, acting on a tip, found the Sacred Cod in a State House hallway used only when the House is in session.

(The 80 lbs, if included at all, should be part of the object's description.)

What source supports Representation of a codfish as any kind of official name?

EEng (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inline Citation Page Numbers

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am opposed to the page numbers of book cites being included inline. it clutters the article with additional numbers that do not bare on the content, it make it more difficult to find where something is cited as the information is now located in two separate places(the ref and then inline as opposed to purely the ref with a bibliography with additional information on the book if needed), and it is a way of citing not seen in many other wiki pages. This way of citing will confuse the reader as to what all the numbers mean and how to find where the information is in the source. I suggest we go back to a bibliography style with cites referencing the books and numbers in the refs.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an accepted citation style on Wikipedia.
Far from making it hard to tell what's cited where, it gathers all the abcde-type etc. back-links, for a given work, in one footnote, instead of there being a separate footnote for each page cited within a work.
It makes the footnotes look less padded.
You figured out what all the numbers mean and I'm sure others will too.

EEng (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop the deletions

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Wholesale deletions of sections in the article are pointless and aggravating. If an editor thinks that a section or other cited information does not belong in the article please bring the concern here so we can come to a concusses. I am an inclusionist and it appears Eeng is a deletionist. We can come to compromises but only through discussion on the talk. The way the editing has been going is just fruitless for everyone.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on contributors -- this has nothing to do with some false "deletionism-inclusionism" dichotomy. There are two of my edits I want to mention right off:

[29], in which I removed the picture of an actual codfish; in retrospect I agree with you that this was a mistake
[30] I do think this material is grossly excessive, and the FA delegate commenting at the recent FA review agreed [31] We can discuss how much of this material to include in the article, but without question it's discursive to the subject of the Cod itself, and belongs in a note, not in the main text, as does the "Crimson invasion" material.

Other than the above, can you please provide diffs of one or two of the "deletions" I've made which you find objectionable, and explain your objections to them?

EEng (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There being no response after three days, I'll have to continue to discussion alone. Despite your talk of "wholesale deletion", other than the two edits I listed above I have only removed isolated uncited claims, misreading of sources, claims based on obviously unreliable sources, and so on, or removed duplicate statements that were already elsewhere in the article. I always provide edit summaries explaining my reasoning, and I continue to invite you to point to any of my edits and meaningfully respond to the reason I gave for it.

In the meantime I've listed here a number of your recent edits and the problems I see with them. (Your edit summaries are in italics).

[32] (return information that was deleated without discussion. do not delete information wholesale with out first discussing it on the talk page.) The information you "returned" was already in the article (search exercised in the diff).

[33] (the source says it was dredged. They had the word "drag" in the 1930. you cannot claim that they meant to say something other than what the source says. That is synthesizing information. please stop changing this.) Yes, they did have the work drag in the 1930s, as evidenced by the use, by the very source to which you're referring, of the word drag (NYT, Apr 28, 1933): Indignant policemen dragged the Charles River near shore... Contrary to your insistence the word dredge does not appear, so please stop changing this.

[34] (→‎History: remove information elsewhere in the article and re add 6inchs. it was cited, you removed the cite and have not allowed time to find an new one or look for one yourself.) I found the source, which doesn't say, as you claim, the cod was re-hung six inches higher than before, but something quite different which you misinterpreted -- check the article after I fix it.

[35] (reinstate the wholesale deletion of the description section. An infobox is not to be used instead of stating this information in the article. all info in infoboxes and leads should be elsewhere as well. Discus on talk before such large deletions.) No, WP:LEAD says: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." In satisfaction of your mistaken interpretation you've repeated the stuff like the length, width, weight, and fact that it's painted two or even three times in various places.

[36] (incluede where it origionaly hung and when it was moved) You've completely mixed up the order of events, confusing things that happened in the Old SH vs modern SH vs new chamber. You also keep insisting on placing in 1894 events which happened in 1895 (Brackett painting, Motely-Parkman placement).

[37] (so amny block quotes make this article impossible to read. there is no need to confuse the readers. If they want all of the direct quotes there is a link to the commitee ref where they can read the whole thing.) The Committee's text is the best way to communicate its uncertainty about whether the first Cod even existed.

[38] (→‎History: this section is now just a string of quotes. remove one that obscures what actually happened to the cod. it was lost not "obscured by smoke for the eyes of the antiquarian") You've misquoted the Committee's text which you removed, which doesn't say the fate of the first cod was to be obscured by smoke, but rather that it went up in a whirl of smoke i.e. was burnt -- which is correct -- assuming it existed in the first place -- and (metaphorically) that this smoke makes it difficult to learn much more about it -- which is also correct, and important for the reader to understand aside from being pleasurably expressed.

[39] (this quote states it was painted twice. remove excess, reduce to that statement, and include in main body of article.) Yes, the source says it was painted twice, but only one of those times was because of renovations to the room (not both times, as you have repeatedly inserted into the text). The "profaned by mortal touch" passage (imitated in 1933 Cod-napping news stories) communicates the winking faux reverence which permeates both the Committe's report and press coverage.

[40] (serriously, we are goign to include a poem written by someoen and put in a newspaper as a joke, but we wont include information about one of the thefts? remove poem as it is completely inappropriate.) The poem absolutely belongs. It's exactly the sort of thing that notes are for. Once again, the faux reverence found in news coverage, which this poem gently pokes fun at, is the most striking thing about this subject.

[41] (please stop wholesale deletion of information. Just becasue this theft does not involve harvard does not mean it should be reduced down to a sentence and a quote from a harvard student.. This is an important, documented part of the cod's history.) Harvard-ness or lack of it has nothing to do with it. The 1933 incident was covered nationwide and referred to over and over in national news stories for many decades (and even today), and prominent people said and did amusing things in relation to it; in fact, it's notable enough for its own article.

The 1968 incident was reported briefly on the day of the theft, and again on the day of recovery, and then forgotten; due weight justifies only brief mention, especially as the sequence of events was entirely pedestrian. (As well expressed at WP:RSUW -- underlining added: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.") And you are the one who keeps moving the quote-from-Harvard-student to this passage -- I had it elsewhere.

[42] (stackign images on the right not only looks terrible but is against wiki img guidelines. sort images back through article in a way so they alternate left and right. Remove state house img as there is no room for it) I don't see any guideline against images stacked at right, and in fact MOS:IMAGELOCATION explicitly points to a template to help with this. The problem with images on the left is that they mess up the indenting of block quotes. Exact image placement can be adjusted when the text is more settled, but in the meantime it's intolerable for the rendered layout to confuse quotes with article text.

Most of these points I have made twice or three times now, with no substantive response from you -- just edit summaries vaguely (and usually falsely) crying "deletion", or that "guidelines require" something they don't. In a bit I will -- in most cases for the third time -- make a series of edits correcting your errors and reducing mindnumbing repetition. If you feel I've erred in any of these edits, the onus is on you to specifically point out what I've done wrong, as I have done for you above. Please do so here, with diffs, so we can substantively discuss. Where you claim a policy or guideline applies, please cite it -- after reading it, of course. Where you claim a source says something, please cite it -- after reading it, of course. I don't want to spend any more time arguing with you about e.g. drag vs. dredge while you insist the source says the exact opposite of what it actually does say.

EEng (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Origin of phrase "Sacred Cod"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am removing the assertion that "The term 'sacred cod' originally referred to the type of fish itself" which is cited to two sources:

Kurlansky's text, discussing the physical appearance of cod vs. haddock, is:

In New England, there is a tranditional explanation for this difference. There, cod is sometimes referred to as "the sacred cod." In truth, this is because it has earned New Englanders so many sacred dollars. But according to New England folklore, it was the fish that Christ multiplied to feed the masses. In the legend, Satan tried to do the same thing, but since his hands were burning hot, the fish wriggled away. the burn marks of Satan's thumb and forefinger left black stripes: hence the haddock.

There's no question there's a folktale about the fishes' appearance (see [43], referring to The Yankee Cook Book, 1939, Imogene Wolcott). But for idea that the term Sacred Cod was part of this folk story, this is at best ambiguous support. But even if one accepts that, Kurlansky doesn't say when this folk idea developed, so he gives zero support to the idea that " 'sacred cod' originally referred to the type of fish".

Jud's New England Jouornal is just a website of unsigned podcast transcripts, a few years after Kurlansly's book appeared.

A search of Googlebooks and the Globe archives shows absolutely no appearance of the phrase "Sacred Cod" until immediately after the Committee issued its report (referring to "the sacred emblem") in 1895, and the very first use listed is a Globe article about the carving. Only later is "Sacred Cod" used in reference to actual fish, often in protectionist references contrasting high-quality New England cod with (allegedly) inferior fish from other areas. It seems obvious that the Committee report sparked it all -- "Sacred Cod" referred to the carving first, the actual fish later. See

[44] Googlebooks search for "Sacred Cod" prior to 12/31/1895 (almost every entry being an OCR error for the sacred God e.g. What is my intellect, compared with the sacred Cod?)

See esp [45]

[[46] Boston Globe search for "Sacred Cod", to 12/31/1895

But you don't need all that information to see that there's no support for "originally referred to the type of fish" -- just the fact that Kurlansky doesn't place the "folklore" in time.

EEng (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)