The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm afraid I don't detect any enthusiasm for getting this properly through GAN, and I don't blame folks for not wishing to take up this one at all. Let's start over: given the removal of the 'Culture' section, it needs a different title anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 I feel like the discussion of fish in mythology and religion is a bit light. It feels like it doesn't discuss lots of overarching themes—I don't really know much about how or why fish are used in mythology.
Added a bit on the overarching themes, especially in Persian culture, and a supporting image. The section is already quite long, and it contains 16 sources, which is pretty good, I'd have thought.
2 The introduction feels like it's a digression that just describes what "Culture" is in general, which doesn't strike me as necessary.
The lead just summarizes the body of the article. The context paragraph on culture is provided to distinguish the general meaning (as used here) from "popular culture" and from "[high] culture" like classical music or fine art. Without a clear definition in the article, the rest of it would make no sense to some readers.
I've replied to your comments above, and to the visitor's comments below. Decisions on the GAN are yours alone. I'm now less busy and will respond to any further comments or suggestions you may have promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The academic study of "Fish in culture" has a scientific term: Ethnoichthyology. I do not know why there has apparently never been any discussion of merging the two articles and choosing an appropriate title. I can understand not choosing ethnoichthyology, a term that few would type into a search engine, but it should be included in the opening of the merged article.
The existence of a hierarchy of interdisciplinary fields of study on the relationships between humans and nature makes the definition of any WP article on the topics based upon an interpretation of a textbook definition of culture not only unnecessary, but an exercise in synthesis as outlined in the discussion in Talk:Human uses of living things#GA Reassessment which delisted that article.
In addition, the textbook cited is no longer in print, so cannot be accessed by any reviewer. It has been succeeded by another edition by the same lead author.(Macionis, John J. (December 11, 2018). Sociology (17 ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN9353066387.)
However, there is no need to reinvent the wheel, since the field of ethnoichthyology provides references for the context for this article, an example being:
I agree with part of this, we don't need to define 'culture' here, so I've removed the 'Context' section and its citation, and added your source. You might note however that sources are not required to be online. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't need to be online, but if scientific they should to be current rather than 13 years old; and verifiable. I would not want to call an old book no longer in print "verifiable". This is now a moot point for this article, but I have noted the use of the same citation in other "Culture" articles. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Science doesn't really have a "Best by" date, and 13 years is pretty recent regardless. I believe the general consensus in metascience is that research and statistical practices haven't substantially changed since around the 1970s. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to fundamental scientific methods, but the revision of the core concept of culture in the social sciences to remove the remaining colonialism that was part of the distinction between advanced vs primitive societies until recently. WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the GAN should proceed. The Ethnoichthyology article is substantial and covers only the scientific aspect of fish in culture; it has nothing to say about art or popular culture, for instance. What we do need to do is to link to that article, at least, and to adjust the context section as proposed (or take other suitable action). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently some content in each article on material and non-material culture. The term ethnoichthyology includes both. If there is a reason to split the content into two related articles, such as the result of a merge being too large, that is another matter. However, the application of WP:summary style is not usually done with two child articles but no parent. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is clearly stated in your first words: The academic study of "Fish in culture" ..., and the start of Ethnoichthyology, which very correctly runs Ethnoichthyology is an area in anthropology that examines human knowledge of fish, ...: both statements are correct. The point is that academic study is one, narrow, aspect; the rest of the area is a wide field, the subject of this article. I've added a brief section with "main" link on academic study. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article on ethnoichthyology is incorrect in calling it an area in anthropology. Based upon the first reference I found (Hounkanrin etal, 2022); ethnoichthyology is an interdisciplinary study that combines ethnography and ichthyology to understand the relationships between fish and humans, and including not only objective knowledge but "stories, fables, and experiences of elders, responses to problems that occurred in ancient times and have been passed down through generations." This is not the narrow view, but the broadest. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view, which I understand but do not accept; I believe the description in the article is basically correct, and we aren't going to agree on that, it seems, but even if academic ichthyology is involved, the discipline is very far from encompassing all non-academic approaches. It'd be much appreciated if you would now let us get on with the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by this reply, since everything I've seen from anthropology leads me to think the field would probably cover art and popular culture.
You are correct in thinking that anthropology covers all aspects of human activity, from science to art to everyday life. If you are referring to the short description "Depiction of fish in human culture", that was mistaken, and I have changed to it to "Use and meaning of fish in human culture". WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're off-topic here. I'll just note that ethnoichthyology is a science, while "fish in culture" is a domain. In the same way, zoology is a science, animal(s) is a domain; medicine is a science, disease is a domain; geology is a science, rocks is a domain. This is also the answer to your remarks about "The Two Cultures": this is not a science vs humanities thing, but a matter of a complete difference in kind, and confusing the two is what philosophers see as the most disastrous of all types of error, a categorisation error. The short description should not be limited to depictions, but encompass all aspects of fish in human culture (as a domain); ethnoichthyology is the science that studies all those aspects (as a science). I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization of the topic of "Fish in culture" as a science was not mine. The article as first nominated began with a Context section which proposed using a definition of culture from a sociology textbook, ending with the statement "This article describes the roles played by fish in human culture, so defined." Although that section was deleted, this article continues to use a social science definition of culture to organize the content into "Practical uses" (material culture), "Religion and folklore" and "In art" (non-material culture). I did not want to be so involved in this GA review, but merely point out that such a leap from a textbook definition to its application is synth, but this could be resolved by using a definition from ethnoichthyology, which coincides with the domain of fish in culture as combining the study of human culture with the study of fish, and is thus not entirely anthropological, but interdisciplinary. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
