Talk:Sacred Cod

2023 reenactment

• "This fish swims upstream: Sacred Cod is carried once again from Old State House to Beacon Hill", Brian MacQuarrie, Boston Globe, January 11, 2023. "To mark the 225th anniversary of the relocation of the so-called Sacred Cod, which hangs above the House of Representative chamber, a replica of the wooden fish was taken along the original route from the Old State House to Beacon Hill." EEng 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Gore

Sources:

• EEng 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston, Samuel Adams Drake, p.72

Good Article reassessment (2)

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.

---

@GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis Greetings all. I have strong concerns that this article may no longer meet the standards of a Good Article. I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics. First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, which breaks up the prose and in most cases only muddies its meaning. As we all know, MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and encourages the use of quotation only when it serves a clear clarifying or attributive function. For example, we have:

• "painted to the life" in the very first sentence. I don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying.
• "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" also in the first sentence. This is the second in a single sentence and it can be easily and more concisely paraphrased without quotation.
• "historic and continuing symbol", ALSO in the very first sentence. This quote is attached to a broken citation, and said broken citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
  • By the way, this part of the sentence also includes the clarification 'i.e. Massachusetts', which either would be unnecessary if the prior quote were clear, or IS necessary if the prior quote is ambiguous. If this the case, the quote shouldn't have been included in the first place because it doesn't particularly clarify things! We're using a lot of words here to include material that doesn't say all that much, and would be far clearer if paraphrased. And this is all quite literally in the first sentence.
• A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph, and we're now at four quotes in the first two sentences of the article. I also (and admittedly this is subjective, but I think it's all part of the bigger picture) disagree with the structure "if it really existed—". It seems whimsical and loose, and I don't believe that this article being about a somewhat silly subject means that every paragraph should be packed with flowery prose. Most good articles are not.
  • Furthermore, we all know from MOS:LEAD that the lead serves to introduce and summarize the article's contents. That is not happening here! The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article, and I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." Again, a needlessly confusing run-on sentence that could be made shorter and clearer if we didn't have to dedicate space to introducing and including quotes.
• Same story in paragraph two. We have a very long inline quote about investigating the significance of the Cod. This could be trimmed dramatically to "to investigate the significance of the emblem" or paraphrased to "to investigate its historical significance." Nothing is added here by the quote and it's far too much information for the lead.
• I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice. This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome. If we're going to use the pun, say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping."

I'm going to stop with the examples for now, as this is only three paragraphs and the issues are various, but if anyone fails to see how said issues continue in the body, I'd be happy to point them out. I want to approve the article and bring it up to what I would consider GA standard, but it's not feasible when all proposed edits are so forcefully (and I would argue, hostilely) rejected with the justification that it wouldn't be on the list if there were flaws. Let me know your thoughts, Cpotisch (talk) 12:19, 20 July

• Hmmm. Where to start? Well...
  • "painted to the life" ... I don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying. – To the life is a common expression meaning "exactly like the real thing", which seems very clarifying. Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills , but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".
  • "historic and continuing symbol" ... This quote is attached to a broken citation – Here again your googling skills may be wanting. The new URL was easily found by googling General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ch. 2 §13 (the citation given). I've updated the link, but please in future make an effort fix things like that yourself before wasting your fellow editors' time by making a mountain out of a molehill.
  • said citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic." – The cited statute reads, "The cod shall be the fish or fish emblem and the historic and continuing symbol of the commonwealth." So it's not a tradition, it's a fiat. (It immediate neighbors are "Section 12. The lady bug shall be the insect or insect emblem of the commonwealth" and "Section 14. The Boston terrier shall be the dog or dog emblem of the commonwealth.")
  • A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph – Most stuff in leads isn't supposed to carry citations; in any event the phrase "prehistoric creature of tradition" is repeated in the article body, where it is cited to "A History of the Emblem of the Codfish in the Hall of the House of Representatives", authored by the Committee on the History of the Emblem of the Codfish -- incontrovertibly the authoritative source. If you'd done a control-F for the word "creature", you would have discovered this instead of expecting your fellow editors to do the work for you.
  • The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article – False. The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.
  • The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." – First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life"). Anyway, the passage in question is

    The Sacred Cod has gone through as many as three incarnations over three centuries: the first (if it really existed‍—‌the authoritative source calling it a "prehistoric creature of tradition") was lost in a 1747 fire; the second disappeared during the American Revolution; and the third, installed in 1784, is the one seen in the House chamber today.

  There's no contradiction. If the first cod really existed, then it was lost in a fire; if not, then not. It's simple. A course on logic might help you.

  • The fire ... I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. – You can argue that, but it's certainly appropriate to mention that there have been three incarnations of the cod, and having done that it's natural to also tell what happened to them.
  • run-on sentence – Please look that up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life" and "unequivocating/uneqiuvocal" and "run-on sentence") so you'll know what it means. There are no run-on sentences in the article.
  • I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice – It's not in Wiki-voice; it's in quotes, as appropriate.
  • say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping. – Since you didn't mean to imply that the Harvard Lampoon was later called the Cod-napping, but you nonetheless did so, you may want to review 8th-grade English. Maybe WP:MISSSNODGRASS can help you.

Well, pointing out all the nonsensical critiques in your grammatically fractured list has indeed been fun, but now we must move on to the real question: exactly which of the GA criteria does the article not meet?

But before you answer that, please do us the favor of reviewing WP:What the Good article criteria are not. It will save us all a lot of time correcting your misapprehensions. I look forward to your answer. EEng 02:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You're being extremely antagonistic in your replies to everyone attempting to improve this article, so maybe you could assume some good faith instead. But I'm going to look past that. Point taken on "to the life" and the fire being included in the body. WP:GACN is an essay, not a guideline, so I'm ignoring that, and frankly you should know better than to reference it.

If you want to look at the actual GAC, you'd notice the following requirements:

• "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; three quotes in one sentence is not concise, especially given that I've illustrated how said quotes can be trimmed down
• "it complies with the manual of style"; the Manual of Style makes clear (MOS:QUOTEPOV, the "unnacceptable" example) that the mere use of quotation marks does not take a quotation out of Wiki voice. The phrasing in the beginning of the Cod-napping section does this right.

Now scrolling down, you would notice the Second Cod section is about 80% a quote. Said quote is whimsical but imparts minimal information. I fail to see why we can't paraphrase most of it. Then the Third Cod has a very very long sentence that is again mostly quotes which could be easily paraphrased. Same story on the Committee on History of the Emblem of the Codfish; you don't need a quote to say that they researched and investigated for two months, or that they ordered its removal.

Again, in "Cod-napping" and other incidents, you have a sentence that constitutes the entire second paragraph, containing four separate quotes. Also, calling this a "crisis" in Wiki voice seems a little too silly.

I would definitely appreciate it if you could critique my ideas (since you clearly understand them) and not resort to sophomoric "wow a minor typo on a talk page!" retorts. Cpotisch (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

They're not minor typos; they're vocabulary and grammar boners that show you're not experienced in writing high-quality prose. And FFS learn how to indent your replied. Now, let's see again:

• WP:GACN is an essay, not a guideline, so I'm ignoring that, and frankly you should know better than to reference it. – Essays have an important purpose, which is to save editors the trouble of repeating common discussion points, for example pointing out common misconceptions about the GA requirements, such as the ones (see below) under which you labor.
• If you want to look at the actual GAC, you'd notice the following requirements ... "it complies with the manual of style" – No, MOS compliance is not a fucking GA requirement, and if you had read GACN like a much more experienced editor suggested you do, you'd know that. (BTW, I'm not saying the article doesn't comply with MOS, just that I don't need to waste time arguing with you about it while you're on your GA delist quest.) So let this be the last we hear of your high-school ideas about quotations.

As for you general writing complaints, I'll refer you to the prior GA review, above on this page. A particularly cogent comment: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. There's plenty of other stuff along those lines up there if you care to enlighten yourself about the nature of quality writing that does its job well and gives its readers pleasure. EEng 20:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you care to explain how profanity and talking about my "high-school ideas" and my "teacher", does not constitute a violation of WP:UNCIVIL? Argue the facts, not the editor. This is getting really frustrating as as far as I can tell everyone here (including past editors who you have been even more hostile with) are trying their best to improve the article. Cpotisch (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, you're not a high school student? You'll forgive my mistake. I am arguing the facts. Fact: you think MOS is a requirement for GA, even though that's twice been pointed out to you as false. Fact: you throw around terms like run-on without knowing what they mean. Fact: after to the life was explained to you, you then went on (over at the GAR) to criticize it as being presented "as fact", when it is indeed fact, as cited in the article body.

Meanwhile, your blatant canvassing (including of the (few) editors who had negative things to say in the last misbegotten GAR) does you no honor, but no hard feelings, I'll just ping in all the other participants. And oh yes, it would have been nice had you made clear here in the thread that you'd actually opened WP:Good_article_reassessment/Sacred_Cod/2. EEng 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS is a requirement for the lead, so don’t be disingenuous. I also didn’t canvas in any way; I tagged you and the listed GA project coordinators.

I also only opened the GAR after realizing that the template here was insufficient; you were the only other active editor and you were tagged in it. Bring in whoever you want; doesn’t Change the fact that you continue to make hostile and presumptuous accusations instead of letting your (valid) points speak for themselves. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS is a requirement for the lead, so don’t be disingenuous. – No, smartypants, the section of MOS relating to leads (WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) is what's required. Or perhaps you're being disingenous? You've got a lot to learn, see, and the sooner you start talking less and listening more, the better. EEng 02:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting The proposed alternative language The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping. is so poorly written that it calls Cpotisch's editorial judgment into question. The notion that essays should be excluded or ignored is strange because widely accepted essays are commonly used in such conversations. For example, the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is extremely influential across the project. I could go on and on, but I will leave that to EEng, and work on other things. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was an example, not a formal proposal. Take whatever stance you want on my editorial judgment, but since it’s clearly a sticking point, how about “The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, an incident later termed “the Cod-napping””? Is this egregious?

  And correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that actual policy supersedes essays, even when the latter are of utility. Cpotisch (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  You're unbelievable. So now the Harvard Lampoon is an incident? And what do you mean by "Is this egregious?" Are you asking whether what you just wrote is egregious? (Yes it is, in fact.) Do you even know what that word means? EEng 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  First of all, WP:FACRWP:GACR isn't a policy. Second of all, sure, if an essay contradicts a guideline, then the guideline prevails. But if (as here) the essay acts to elucidate the finer points of a guideline, for the benefit of editors (such as yourself) who are otherwise misinterpreting it, then it's a fine and useful thing. This is (unless I've lost count) my third exhortation that you read it, so that you don't keep saying boners like "MOS is a requirement for the lead". 02:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I did read it, and I read the criteria itself. Unless I am catastrophically misreading, it makes extremely clear that the lead section should follow the manual of style. Care to explain how I’m wrong? Be specific as to how this constitutes a “boner”. Cpotisch (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cpotisch, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do I need to draw you a picture? In the criteria, where the guideline says, b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, CLICK THE GODDAM WORDS 'Lead sections' AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now. And BTW, criteria is plural -- criteria themselves -- Mr. Writing Expert. You're beginning to look like a WP:CIR case. EEng 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Looks like, instead of saying, "Wow, I guess I really was mixed up about the GA requirements and wasting everyone's time", you've decided to open an ANI thread. EEng 12:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. I’ve clearly been overruled on the editorial questions, and that’s fine, but you can’t just make a bizarre comment like this last one and expect me to ignore it. Cpotisch (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - While EEng's tone was particularly nasty here throughout and worthy of the block he's received, I have to disagree with both your edits and starting the BRD-cycle discussion in the form of a GA-reassessment. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Whitespace

Apologies @EEng for creating one whitespace issue while trying to fix another. I was hoping that forcing the first heading below the infobox would look ok. I'll just leave a screenshot here so more experienced layout twiddlers can decide if it's an issue worth fixing and/or fixable. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

[One year later ...] I think this edit addresses the problem you saw without suffering the new problem that your earlier attempt introduced. To explain: your original edit had the effect of performing a {clear} before the TOC, because the TOC is normally automatically generated when the parser sees the first ==-type section. My edit forces the TOC to be produced before the {clear}. I'd be interested to know whether this resolves the problem shown in your screenshot. EEng 01:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, looks nice. Thanks. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"painted to the life"

This phrase doesn't make any sense. Could it be reworded in a way that does? A user who appears to regard this article as his own sarcastically advised me to look at a dictionary, but needless to say, it is not the individual words that are the problem, but the unclear overall meaning. tomasz. 20:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

i note that someone else has previously raised that this idiom is unclear and was dismissed with similar rudeness. tomasz. 20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This was judged a Good article, likely containing that interesting and accurate phrase. It seems acceptable encyclopedic language. Please link the perceived rudeness so its context can be clear and not just an aspersion of out-of-the-blue (or, in more understandanble terms, the language used representing the species' continued fear of predatory dinosaurs suddenly attacking them and their mates from the sky) rudeness, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That said, I find the original and long-term language "painted to the life" much more accurate than "realistically painted". Here is a dictionary search page for "to the life". Please notice that it means "exactly", an exact rendition of the creature, not a fin or shade of color out of place. "Realistically" seems to be a viewpoint-of-degree. Does "realistic" mean "exactly" or does it mean "in the ballpark"? I read it out as the latter, and the former as an entirely different expression of perfected artistic duplication of nature itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)