Talk:The Merchant of Venice

Prince of Arorgon

The casket test 49.205.119.77 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Historical error in plot

@AlexAndrews, hello. I'll reply here to your message on my talkpage, the article talkpage is the default place to discuss article issues.

I've never read the play myself, so I can't say if your edit here [1] is an improvement or not, perhaps someone else will comment on that. However, I removed the comment/ref on historical accuracy, it's not WP-style to put editor's comments in ref-tags. Your source is a WP:BLOG, and while it's not outlandish to summarize some scholarly comment on that, the plot section is not the place. My knee-jerk reaction is "so what?" or in WP-speak WP:PROPORTION. Shakespeare was not an historian, as your source notes. Also, afaict, your source doesn't say "the play was wrong on this point", but maybe I missed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång

.

Hi. Jessica eloping with Lorenzo (for them to marry following her conversion to Christianity) and stealing a lot of her father's riches while he is out to dinner with the Christians Antonio and Bassanio is a very important plot point in the play, so it is definitely worth noting that this particular plot device is actually historically inaccurate - the Christian-Jew theme is absolutely central to the play. It also rather proves that whoever wrote the play most likely hadn't actually visited Venice.

.

The more I read the play, the more important I see that the play is, even today. It is the only play of Shakespeare's that I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't turn out to be his most important. If as you say you haven't seen/read it, then, on the face of it, it is just a dramatic comedy and love story. But if you really look into it, it is so much more than that. As I am slowly learning. AlexAndrews (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you can get your hands on Upstart Crow, I recommend it.[2] "They call me "Puck". As in What the?" Cunk on Shakespeare is also worth watching. "I've been studying Shakespeare, ever since I was asked to do this program." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlexAndrews, like @Masato.harada says, [3] stop inserting your own commentary, in refs or in notes or whatever. This is not the website for that. If there are any "errors (and of course there is)" in a work of fiction to mention, we do it WP:FILMHIST style, with sources at least as good as [4][5]. Most often, it's not interesting per WP:PROPORTION. But there are exeptions: The_Winter's_Tale#The_seacoast_of_Bohemia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick reply: yes, I always wanted to watch Upstart Crow but somehow never found the time to do so 8-( But I'm a big fan of Philomena Cunk!

PS please see the topic Plot Summarry below. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary

@Masato.harada

I see that you have removed some of my last edit and questioned why I am making so many edits to the plot summary, so I should like to say a few things here, rather than in an edit comment.

First, and without going into detail, my current situation does not really afford me the luxury of sitting and composing a single edit to arrive at a "perfect" plot summary.

Secondly, the edits I am making are to refine the plot summary so that it more accurately reflects the play.

Third point: the section of the article is simply called "plot summary", not "concise plot summary", so important detail should not be omitted which compromises its verisimilitude to the play's content.

Fourth point: the "original research" you refer to are NOTES on elements of the plot that raise interesting points for any reader to CONSIDER. They are not really part of the encyclopedic entry.

Hopefully in due course it will become MUCH clearer why I have done all of this, so please bear with me. In the meantime I should be very grateful if you would refrain from amending my edits unless absolutely necessary - perhaps leave a note here instead? Thanks very much. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the personal commentary efn:s. Now, or an admin may block you. They are part of the article, and "Note that" is not how we do it on WP (MOS:INSTRUCT). And "The irony of this construct is..." is REALLY not how we do it here, see WP:OR. You have to understand that, or stop editing. Ping @Bishonen, in case you want to say something. I removed the efn:s [6], do not re-insert them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, never use WP-articles as references on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlexAndrews: I appreciate your desire to improve the article, but you seem to be applying outside standards and your own deductions in the process. Wikipedia has specific policies and a detailed manual of style to guide these things, and going in blind to these you are almost certain to miss the mark. In particular, when other contributors start to revert you your first instinct should be to come to the talk page to figure out what the objection is. In that, always keep foremost in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative and consensus-based project.

That being said, the objections to your changes to the plot summary are based on specific issues related to both policy and our manual of style. A primary issue is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which means we never make assessments or value judgements in Wikipedia's own voice. If there is relevant interpretation, controversy, or criticism in the field we neutrally discuss what they say, but do not engage in it ourselves. All such interpretive claims should be cited to a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia itself is not an appropriate source to use. Wikipedia has no opinion on the subjects discussed in our articles, and when we report the opinions of the reliable secondary sources we discuss what the experts in the field in general say about the matter (pro and con, up and down, all significant viewpoints).

And while one may be tempted to interpret the section heading—"Plot summary"—as a general term, our manual of style and other guidelines actually define that section, how it should be handled, and what it contains. In effect, "Plot summary" is a Wikipedia-specific term of art. Plot summaries in articles should only summarise the plot, not comment on it. They are implicitly cited to the original work (the play) as an acceptable primary source reference, which means that anything that is not mere summation is out of place and would in any case need citation to a reliable secondary source. And there is a general expectation that plot summaries be as succinct as possible; preferably 500–700 words. We're already way above that, so any efforts at improvement should be directed at making it briefer, not extending it.

Every effort to help improve our articles is welcome, but the approach you've taken with the plot summary here is very much in conflict with policy, the manual of style, and the stablished practices on the project. I therefore think you need to take a step back, read up a bit on how we do things (which is in many ways much matured since 2011), and then raise your concerns or proposals here on the talk page to gain consensus. Xover (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it then.

.

I would note that the description from the First Quarto should not have been removed, however.

.

Perhaps you could also tell me where all the factual errors, plot inconsistencies, etc should go? They are POINTS OF INFORMATION (almost the sort of thing you would expect to find in an encyclopedia), by the way: FACTS (which are axiomatically neutral) not opinion.

.

And just for the record, I came here this evening to rename the "Plot summary" section to "Detailed plot summary", and create a new section "Brief plot summary" with a skeleton outline of the play's plot.

.

EDIT And if the notes I was including needed citations (eg the New Testament preaches "turn the other cheek"), I would have happily found them in due course - all that was needed was a "citation needed" to be added, not to delete the whole note. I find that rather passive-aggressive.

AlexAndrews (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website, it's WP:OR. Write it on your blog or another wiki if you like. Perhaps Shakespeare Wiki works differently. If there are such sources, consider the WP:FILMHIST guidance, and relevant policy like WP:PROPORTION. The purpose of this article is to summarize on-topic WP:RS. If Samuel Schoenbaum wrote in one of his books that there is something inconsistent in this play, it might have a place somewhere, but still not in the plot-section. The plot is just the plot, without comments about stuff being ironic or wrong. Fiction is often wrong, being fiction to start with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am operating under a misconception, but my understanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative and educational, not to simply be "a summary of reliable sources". That just sounds like ideological dogma.

.

And WP:RS is just the policy regarding contentious material: by their very definition, facts are not contentious.

.

The wholesale removal of factual information is not only passive-aggressive, it is censorship.

.

So far experienced editors have done nothing but tell me that what I have done does not conform with apparent WP poljcy; they have not once advised what approach I should take to incorporate the information into the article to comply with WP policy. That is not constructive. AlexAndrews (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it's our ideological dogma, some of it at WP:What Wikipedia is not. But the internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, on WP, saying something is wrong or inconsistent in a work of fiction based on your reading of the work of fiction is WP:OR. Do that on other websites. This [7] can be a good source in some contexts, I used it in this article myself, but it says nothing about this play having any errors, so for that, it's useless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose your changes here on the talk page, including explaining what reliable secondary sources support the proposed changes. In particular, you won't get support for adding much of anything to this article based on a blog post. Given the vast body of research in this field you'll need to show that whatever it is you're adding has been addressed by high-quality secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles in mainstream journals, monographs published in one of the generally well-reputed academic publishers like OUP, CUP, etc.) written by a recognised expert in this field (blog posts and Cliff's Notes won't cut it). This will have two purposes: the obvious one is verifying that the information is accurate, but the other is to help determine whether the issue or topic is of sufficient import to cover in the article (and if so, with how much emphasis). For stuff like plot inconsistencies the bar for inclusion is going to be very high and require very good sourcing, including possibly also needing to show that the points are generally considered to be relevant and of import (for example, if both the modern standard critical editions of the play—Arden and Oxford—cover it more than in passing).

PS. You still seem to be arguing based on what you think Wikipedia should be, how it should operate, and what its policies should be. You're very unlikely to get very far starting from that position, so I strongly recommend you take the time to familiarise yourself with the project and its policies first. Wikipedia has evolved its policies and practices through a very long and iterative process (literally over decades), and while a lot of it is not at all intuitive to new users there are very good reasons why things are the way they are. For example, Wikipedia has a very strict policy on using multiple accounts without due disclosure, and doing so in a way that appears intended to manipulate a discussion or influence consensus is considered a very serious (blockable) breach of the policy. This can include editing while logged out if not obviously accidental. This may appear illogical or excessively draconian to newcomers, but hard-won experience has shown that on a collaborative and consensus-based project on such a massive scale as Wikipedia such behaviour is extremely destructive to the basic trust between contributors that is necessary for the project to function. Xover (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Mm. I thought Shaul Bassi's comment from [8]

"I don’t think that Shakespeare ever visited Venice or the Ghetto before the publication of the play in the First Quarto, in 1600. But news of the place must have reached him. The relationship between Shylock and the other characters is clearly based on a very intimate understanding of the new social configurations created by the Ghetto."

was quite interesting, and thought of adding something of that, possibly in a "Historicity" section (don't see an obvious current section for it). The question is, per WP:DUE, should I? Shakespeare being such a hyper-researched subject, there's probably other and more extensive sources on what S. knew about Venice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Shakespeare's familiarity, or lack of it, with his subjects is an ongoing topic of interest and research, although a lot of it is very speculative and subject to academic fashions. Mostly we tend to cover such issues as part of the "Sources" section (it covers where Shakespeare got the information to write the play; cf. Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet), plus for Merchant (and a few other plays) it'll be a relevant topic for several of the critical lenses in "Criticism and interpretation" (cf. Romeo and Juliet), and thus also for the "Critical history" section (cf. A Midsummer Night's Dream) and possibly also for whatever additional section that covers historiography. Xover (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This is really rather the point I am trying to expose by pointing out these inconsistencies and inaccuracies... AlexAndrews (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Right. But it's not us (those who contribute to Wikipedia) that get to point that stuff out; it's the subject-matter experts writing in peer-reviewed publications, published on reputable presses, and whose points and arguments are counter-signed by other recognised experts in the field. Xover (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I am just pointing out some FACTS about the plot: it is for the "experts" (or the readers) TO DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS from those facts. That is what I am NOT doing (because that would be original research - which is banned on Wikipedia). AlexAndrews (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, but it is also the selection of which facts to highlight that's the issue. You're selecting these points—which, let's just for the sake of argument stipulate are facts—that you think are important, over any number of other things the article could cover. Inconsistencies in the plot are not a particular concern among Shakespearean scholars (or Early Modern scholars in general). This is why we do not have such sections in our play articles. A summary of the action of the play is important for the reader to understand it, but otherwise the plot is addressed only through the major critical lenses commonly applied to that particular play (e.g. Antisemitism, Feminist, Psychoanalytical, Queer theory, Post-colonial, New Historicist, etc.). Xover (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

May I respectfully refer you to Groupthink. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To quote a reply I have made to another comment:

Why should a student not be able to make an ORIGINAL POINT (that the "experts" have overlooked) in an essay inspired by a fact he read on Wikipedia?????

AlexAndrews (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And to quote Friedrich Nietzsche, I believe:

Insanity in individuals is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.

AlexAndrews (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlexAndrews: Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Xover (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - who have I attacked? And how? AlexAndrews (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry one last point: it is not the specific inconsistencies and factual errors that are important; it is the fact that there are so many in the plot (I have another one to add) that is important - but having stated in the article that they exist in the plot I have to justify that claim by citing them from the play (as per policy). AlexAndrews (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

From Groupthink, for those who couldn't be bothered to read it:

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel under peer pressure to "go along with the crowd" for fear of "rocking the boat" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the rest of the group. Group interactions tend to favor clear and harmonious agreements and it can be a cause for concern when little to no new innovations or arguments for better policies, outcomes and structures are called to question.

AlexAndrews (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really wish to labour the point, but if the text said that Shylock was wearing trousers the colour of blood, and then in the article I wrote that he was wearing RED trousers without citing any sources to verify that statement, would you remove that edit, EVEN THOUGH BLOOD IS RED??? AlexAndrews (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That depends on the context. It is certainly sufficiently interpretative that if the point was or could be controversial it might be reverted. In most cases this would be a matter for copy-editing, where we would probably land on something like quoting the play directly, but clearly marked by quotation marks, to avoid the interpretation (leave it up to the reader). Xover (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It could be the color of dried blood... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

IF the point is contentious, then a "citation needed" tag should be applied to make readers aware, NOT the removal of the point - UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. But nobody is going to contend the point in my example - because it is a FACT that blood is red.

.

So again, if anyone thinks the plot inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies I have pointed out are contentious, they can add a "citation needed" tag - or reference evidence to the contrary, should it exist - not just wholesale remove the information. That is censorship and vandalism, and very passive-aggressive as I have already pointed out.

.

The bottom line is that you are applying policy for contentious material to material that is not contentious. That is the misapplication of Wikipedia policy. I should be very grateful if you would refrain from doing so any further. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:RS:

The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

My sources are (principally) the text itself. Are you really saying that someone is going to challenge that it is not inconsistent for a suitor to swear not to take a wife if unsuccessful, and then when he unsuccessfully picks the silver casket, the scroll inside says whatever wife you take to bed (having just sworn not to have a wife in the future)? Or that it is historically inaccurate for Shylock and his daughter to have freely interacted with Christians at night time when they would have been locked up inside the ghetto away from them? You might think these facts that I have identified (they are still facts, even if nobody else has identified them) are trivial (in which case, why all the fuss???) and not worthy of inclusion, but in the fulness of time you might come to see their significance - together with the significance of the fact that they haven't been identified before! I fail to see how pointing out FACTS constitutes original RESEARCH. It wasn't I who went out and discovered that Venetian Jews were strictly isolated from Christians at night - that was someone else's RESEARCH! AlexAndrews (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You use your reading of the text to state that there are inconsistencies/ironies/errors and whatever, that is WP:OR. As a Wikipedian, your "job" is to summarize scholarly views on these things, otherwise they are out of WP:s scope, as Xover explained quite well at [9]. If Stanley Wells has a take on these things, it may be good content in some form. You may not like this aspect of WP, but it's how it's done here. The fuss about WP:OR is that on this website it's considered a relevant policy for this attempt to make an encyclopedia. It's how the WP-community wants it. It's imperfect, but that's fine, people are.

And if you haven't by now been able to find a WP:RS that could be arsed to point out that the night isolation thing was an "error" in this play, doesn't that hint to you that it's a trivial thing regarding this work of fiction? To quote this WP:BLOG you keep inserting, "Shakespeare was not writing history". It also says "Shakespeare does not explicitly mention the Venetian Ghetto in the play." Perhaps in Shakespeare's fictional universe, there was no Venetian ghetto? Maybe an answer can be found in the deserts of Bohemia. Anyway, I think we've reached the end of any useful discussion on this issue. WP:Dispute resolution is open to you if you think it's a good idea. Btw, if you stick around, you'll get access to the WP:LIBRARY which can be very useful for a Wikipedian, including access to JSTOR, Newspapers.com etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I found this [10] today, which I used in the article, perhaps you'll find it interesting. That production may very well qualify for a WP-article of it's own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to read that but I can't access PDFs at the moment. AlexAndrews (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I note the comment by Johnuniq here:[11]. I would restore the article to this version [12] per that comment, discussion above + the unreasonable addition of plot-content, which is already fairly massive, and as Xover commented above might benefit from reducing. Adding another plot-section is not reducing. But doing so would get me closer to WP:EW than I like, so I'll wait and see what happens.

The [13] Plot Summary section is about 1200 words, the added Short plot summary section about 700 words more. Per MOS:PLOT guidance there is of course editorial discretion here, and 1200 words is perhaps not very outlandish for a fairly famous Shakespeare-play. Perhaps, in this article, it is. The idea that adding a second plot section counts as reducing plot-content[14] is innovative, I don't recall coming across that one before..

The added Plot inconsistencies and factual errors section fails multiple WP-policies as has been stated in this thread and at [15]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, the minimum requirement for an article of this type is the inclusion of a short (500-700 word count) summary of the plot. The "Brief plot summary" I added satisfies that requirement. That is the minimum requirement, not the exclusive requirement. Some readers will only want to read a short plot summary; others will benefit from a longer, more detailed plot summary, so there is room for both sections: nobody is being forced to read both. Removing useful and accurate content is just censorship and/or vandalism, plain and simple.

.

In another comment you said:

Perhaps in Shakespeare's fictional universe, there was no Venetian ghetto?

You make my point for me: the play is not factually accurate. That is not a contentious point, therefore it does not need sourcing. But it is a point of information that might be useful to readers of the article who are unfamiliar with Shakespeare's work. To assume everyone reading the article is au fait with Shakespeare's work is just projecting incorrect personal prejudice.

.

At the end of the day I simply don't understand the reason for desperately wanting to remove factually correct information which some readers (maybe not connoisseurs like yourselves, I accept that) might find informative and educational. It very much appears that there is some sort of agenda here. Wikipedia does not exist for editors to write articles: it exists for readers to inform and educate themselves with true and accurate information.

.

Which is what I am providing.

.

And you are removing. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make one further point. You also stated in an earlier comment:

As a Wikipedian, your "job" is to summarize scholarly views on these things, otherwise they are out of WP:s scope, as Xover explained quite well at [9]

If that were indeed the case then there would be no need for "citation needed" tags; the fact that "citation needed" tags exist necessarily proves your statement to be false. Sorry. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So we disagree on most things you just wrote. What policy says "minimum requirement?" That a work of fiction is not factually accurate is a reasonable default assumption, and unless some RS bothered to mention it, goes without saying. Your inaccuracies section is imdb "goofs" writing, not WP-writing. And your take on cn is just baffling. Well, hopefully other editors will comment and edit at some point. Oh, and for some reason you keep inserting WP:BLOGS that are not even on topic. Just because something is online, it's not a neccessarily a useful ref. Btw, if you're going to add refs in the future, see WP:BAREURL and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you compare the plot to chosen parts of the Bible. Fascinating. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The play is all about the differences between Christians and Jews ... which - NEWSFLASH!!! - all comes down to the Bible. AlexAndrews (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Very quick reply.

.

Forcing readers to make assumptions is not a good idea.

.

I was going on an earlier comment that apparently "plot summaries should be 500-700 words", ie not THE plot summary for an article (so an article can have more than one plot summary). My bad.

.

Also, MOS:Writing_abour_fiction says it is NOT a policy.

.

It also says:

For some types of media, associated guidelines may offer advice on plot length; for example, WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot says that plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.

So again not a policy.

.

It looks like there isn't an actual policy on plot summaries?

.

CN: if you don't understand what I have written there then I don't think I can help you. AlexAndrews (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think you can help anyone. EEng 17:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Two plot summaries - I cannot see that this helps the reader, or is MoS-compliant. Nor have I ever seen such an approach followed anywhere else on Wikipedia, including examples of FAs, e.g. Romeo and Juliet, which has quite a lengthy summary, but only the one;
• Plot Inconsistencies and factual errors - this does seem to be entirely OR. The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.

User:AlexAndrews - having been around for over a decade, you’ll appreciate that Wikipedia operates by consensus. And the current consensus doesn’t support either of your innovations here. KJP1 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You say:

Plot Inconsistencies and factual errors - this does seem to be entirely OR.

Inconsistencies and factual errors in the plot are just facts (I have not made them up - I have quoted the text!); facts are by definition not OR. DRAWING CONCLUSIONS from those facts would be OR - which I absolutely am not doing, as per policy. But readers should be availed of the opportunity to do precisely that - which they can only do if those facts are included in the article in the first place. Why should a student not be able to make an ORIGINAL POINT (that the "experts" have overlooked) in an essay inspired by a fact he read on Wikipedia?????

.

You also say:

Two plot summaries - I cannot see that this helps the reader, or is MoS-compliant. Nor have I ever seen such an approach followed anywhere else on Wikipedia, including examples of FAs, e.g. Romeo and Juliet, which has quite a lengthy summary, but only the one;

One of the first articles I ever authored on Wikipedia was Alderley House. This Grade II listed country house has quite a complex history, so in the article I included a "Brief history" section (2 paragraphs), and also a "Detailed history" section (14 paragraphs) because some readers will just want a quick overview of the house's history, and some will be interested in a more in-depth history of the house: horses for courses, as I have said before. The Merchant of Venice is very similar in this respect. I am unfamiliar with Romeo and Juliet, but I suspect it is nowhere near as complex as the Merchant. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"The plot of the play contains a number of inconsistencies and factual errors." That is your conclusions. With or without "appears". WP:OR and WP:DUE apply to text you write, even if you don't like it. WP:ONUS also applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is contentious as to whether not the parts of the play I have quoted display inconsistency or factual inaccuracy? If so, prceisely which parts of the play that I have quoted do you contend do not display inconsistency/factual inaccuracy? AlexAndrews (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying the text is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. There probably is some useful scholarship on the subject, there are tons of books on S., but you or whoever is interested has to be arsed to find it and summarize it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

THEN YOU NEED TO ADD A "CITATION NEEDED" TAG, DON'T YOU??? Not just delete the information wholesale from the article. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

... because if material is NOT contentious (which you now seem to have conceded my new section isn't) IT DOESN'T NEED SOURCING as per WP:RS policy. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you wrote:

"The plot of the play contains a number of inconsistencies and factual errors." That is your conclusions.

Those are not my "conclusions"; they are FACTS. Do you not understand the difference??? In the same way that you didn't understand the point I was making about CN? AlexAndrews (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You better keep looking for editors who agree with you about that then. Also, on WP, "this is fact" doesn't mean "this will be in the article". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, may I respectfully refer you to Groupthink.

.

Enough said. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

From Groupthink, if you couldn't be bothered to follow the link and read it:

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel under peer pressure to "go along with the crowd" for fear of "rocking the boat" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the rest of the group. Group interactions tend to favor clear and harmonious agreements and it can be a cause for concern when little to no new innovations or arguments for better policies, outcomes and structures are called to question.

AlexAndrews (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Enough said. Yes, I think we've reached the point where enough has been said on this issue. You have failed to gain consensus for your proposed changes to the article, you are no longer bringing new arguments to the discussion (just repeating your assertion that something is a fact), and now you are just casting aspersions on other editors. In other words, this discussion has now exhausted its potential for constructive progress. Xover (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, on whom have I cast aspersions???

.

My "enough said" comment was with reference to the editors on this topic exhibiting all the symptoms of chronic groupthink.

.

So, as we stand we have now established that:

• there is no actual WP policy on plot summaries, contrary to the false statements some editors have made here
• Gråbergs Gråa Sång has conceded that the contents of my "Plot inconsistencies and factual errors" section are not contentious and are actually just facts (namely, quotes from the text)
• WP:RS policy only requires sourcing for contentious material
• there is clear and established precedent in the Alderley House article for having "Brief" and "Detailed" versions of a section

.

In other words there are no coherent arguments against the changes I have made - the opposition that has been voiced is just a classic case of groupthink as detailed. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, what's been established is that there is no consensus for the changes you are proposing. Xover (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What has been established is that the grounds stated so far on this talk page for objecting to the material I have added to the article are false reasons:

• non-contentious material does not need sourcing, as per WP:RS policy;
• the claim that "the errors in the plot are unimportant" is original research, which axiomatically cannot be used as a basis for determining an article's content; and
• there is a clear and established precedent (Alderley House) for an article having "Brief" and "Detailed" versions of the same topic when that topic is particularly complex (as is the case with The Merchant's plot).

So as I said, there are no legitimate grounds for objecting to the encyclopedic content I have added to the article - just false reasons, aka sophistry: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" - Google.

I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors are so vehemently objecting to me improving the article with additional encyclopedic content when that is the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia:

the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

The only reason I can see is, as I have said previously, that there is some sort of agenda.

And so, unless someone can come up with legitimate grounds for objecting to the encyclopedic content that I have previously added, I shall be reinstating it as per the express purpose of Wikipedia. AlexAndrews (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Update:[16]. And 2 threads at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

EC 2 days

I've restored to a stable version and EC'd two days. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone cares what a random arrival thinks, the material removed absolutely demanded removal. Someone who thinks that an article should simply state, in its own voice, that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament of the Bible, which is to "turn the other cheek", while Jews follow the Old Testament of the Bible, which advocates "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" has no idea what he's doing. Even a high school student would know better. EEng 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you agree with me, of course I care about what you think. Yeah, that one stood out for me too, commented on it above, you can find it with ctrl-f bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Too bad he got blocked, because I would have like to have learned from him what, say, Muslims and Buddhists are like too. Very tidy having everything neatly packaged like that. EEng 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to have a "historical inaccuracies" section, it should probably include that English wasn't commonly spoken in 15th-century Venice. Not sure how AlexAndrews missed that. EEng 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And being too lazy too post this anywhere else, I'll say here: it's fairly obvious that User:Hwan aleon is a sock. (I'll leave it to you to guess whose sock.) EEng 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't get used for block evasion it matters little. Xover (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITESTYLE

@Xover, this article is a merry mix of ref-tag and sfn refs, are you planning to "enforce" consistency? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm planning to convert everything to short refs, yes. Xover (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll follow that model henceforth, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Procedures

It's all over. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pointless arguments are self-sustaining. Replying to a comment means that the other person is likely to respond. Then someone replies to the response which elicits another response. And so ad infinitum. The correct procedure is to say nothing unless it is believed there is a problem in the article. In that case, start a new section with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. Edit warring against consensus will not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC) If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy". The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content: the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that. In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)