User:AlexAndrews/sandbox

Plot inconsistencies and factual errors

The plot of the play contains what appears to be a number of inconsistencies and factual errors.

Portia's suitors

At the start of Act I, Scene ii, Nerissa lists all of Portia's current suitors - six in total. They are the Neapolitan prince; the County Palatine; Monsieur le Bon ("the French lord"); Falconbridge ("the young baron of England"); the Scottish lord; and the Duke of Saxony’s nephew ("the young German"):

NERISSA But what warmth is there in your affection towards any of these princely suitors that are already come?
PORTIA I pray thee, overname them. And as thou namest them, I will describe them. And according to my description, level at my affection.
NERISSA First, there is the Neapolitan prince ... Then there is the County Palatine ... How say you by the French lord, Monsieur le Bon? ... What say you then to Falconbridge, the young baron of England? ... What think you of the Scottish lord, his neighbor? ... How like you the young German, the Duke of Saxony’s nephew?

— Act I, Scene ii.

Nerissa subsequently goes on to advise that the six aristocrats she has just named have all decided to leave without taking the casket test:

NERISSA You need not fear, lady, the having any of these lords. They have acquainted me with their determinations, which is indeed to return to their home and to trouble you with no more suit unless you may be won by some other sort than your father’s imposition depending on the caskets.

— Act I, Scene ii.

However, at the conclusion of the scene a servant reports that the four strangers are seeking to bid farewell to Portia, and that a fifth will be arriving later that night - details which are then echoed by Portia:

SERVINGMAN The four strangers seek for you, madam, to take their leave. And there is a forerunner come from a fifth, the Prince of Morocco, who brings word the prince his master will be here tonight.

PORTIA If I could bid the fifth welcome with so good a heart as I can bid the other four farewell, I should be glad of his approach.

— Act I, Scene ii.

Casket test

The terms and conditions for suitors to attempt the casket test include the suitor forswearing never to marry should he be unsuccessful:

Portia You must take your chance,

And either not attempt to choose at all
Or swear before you choose, if you choose wrong
Never to speak to lady afterward
In way of marriage: therefore be advised.

— Act II, Scene i

However, the scroll in the silver casket subsequently references the unsuccessful suitor taking a wife to bed:

Arragon What is here? (Reads.)

" ... Take what wife you will to bed,
I will ever be your head:
So be gone: you are sped."

— Act II, Scene ix

The Venetian Ghetto

After agreeing to loan the money to Antonio, Shylock arranges to meet him and Bassanio for dinner:

Shylock I am bid forth to supper, Jessica:

There are my keys ...
I have no mind of feasting forth to-night:
But I will go. Go you before me, sirrah;
Say I will come.

— Act II, Scene v

And he becomes concerned when he learns that there might be a Christian masque that night, warning his daughter against watching it from his house:

Shylock What, are there masques? Hear you me, Jessica:

Lock up my doors; and when you hear the drum
And the vile squealing of the wry-neck’d fife,
Clamber not you up to the casements then,
Nor thrust your head into the public street
To gaze on Christian fools with varnish’d faces,
But stop my house’s ears, I mean my casements:
Let not the sound of shallow foppery enter
My sober house.

— Act II, Scene v

But once her father has left the house to dine with Antonio and Bassanio, Jessica uses the masque as cover to elope with Lorenzo, furnished with a quantity of her father's riches and disguised as a boy to serve as Lorenzo's torchbearer:

Jessica Here, catch this casket; it is worth the pains.

I am glad ’tis night, you do not look on me,
For I am much ashamed of my exchange:
But love is blind and lovers cannot see
The pretty follies that themselves commit;
For if they could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformed to a boy.
Lorenzo Descend, for you must be my torch-bearer.

— Act II, Scene vi

However, Jews in Venice were strictly isolated in the Venetian Ghetto, an area of the city composed of two connected islands which was gated and locked at night, and Christians were not permitted to live inside it.

Shylock's speech

During Shylock's most eloquent speech in the play, he decries the fact that Jews are vindictive on account of the example set by Christians:

Shylock ... and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

— Act III, Scene i

However, 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". This was made clear at the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in the New Testament Gospels such as the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5:

³⁸You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." ³⁹But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

— Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Matthew 5:38–42)

The trial

At the trial in the Duke's court, Portia (as Balthazar) repeatedly assures Shylock that he has full entitlement under the law to exact the forfeiture of the bond and cut off a pound of Antonio's flesh:

Portia Of a strange nature is the suit you follow; Yet in such rule that the Venetian law Cannot impugn you as you do proceed ... A pound of that same merchant’s flesh is thine: The court awards it, and the law doth give it ... And you must cut this flesh from off his breast: The law allows it, and the court awards it.

— Act IV, Scene i

However, as Shylock is about to do so, Portia stops him, before subsequently going on to advise him that, as an "alien", he has committed an offence under Venetian law by attempting to murder a Venetian citizen:

Shylock Most learned judge! A sentence! Come, prepare!

Portia Tarry a little; there is something else ...
Tarry, Jew:
The law hath yet another hold on you.
It is enacted in the laws of Venice,
If it be proved against an alien
That by direct or indirect attempts
He seek the life of any citizen,
The party ’gainst the which he doth contrive
Shall seize one half his goods; the other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state;
And the offender’s life lies in the mercy
Of the duke only, ’gainst all other voice.
In which predicament, I say, thou stand’st;
For it appears, by manifest proceeding,
That indirectly and directly too
Thou hast contrived against the very life
Of the defendant; and thou hast incurr’d
The danger formerly by me rehearsed.

— Act IV, Scene i

main article

The Merchant of Venice is a play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1596 and 1598. A merchant in Venice named Antonio defaults on a large loan taken out on behalf of his dear friend, Bassanio, and provided by a Jewish moneylender, Shylock, with seemingly inevitable fatal consequences.

Although classified as a comedy in the First Folio and sharing certain aspects with Shakespeare's other romantic comedies, the play is most remembered for its dramatic scenes, and it is best known for the character Shylock and his famous demand for a "pound of flesh" in retribution. against Antonio for past sleights, as described on the title page of the First Quarto in 1600 CE:

"With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Jewe towards the sayd Merchant, in cutting a just pound of his flesh; and the obtayning of Portia by the choyse of three chests."

— First Quarto, 1600 CE

Brief plot summary

Act I

Bassanio, a Venetian noble, is heavily in debt. He has a plan to marry Portia of Belmont, a mature and attractive woman who has recently become a wealthy heiress, attracting suitors from around the world. Bassanio asks his close friend and wealthy merchant, Antonio, for a loan to finance his endeavour. Antonio is cash-poor - all of his funds are tied up in his ships currently at sea to various international destinations - so he agrees to act as guarantor for a loan.

In Belmont, Portia is despairing of her position. She is constrained in marriage by her late father's will: she must marry the first suitor who picks correctly from three caskets – one of gold, one of silver, one of lead – each sporting a cryptic clue.

Bassanio approaches Shylock, a Jewish moneylender. He and Antonio have history: Antonio has many times disparaged Shylock and his custom of charging interest on his loans. Shylock sees the situation as a golden opportunity for revenge: he offers an interest-free loan on condition that Antonio sign a bond whose forfeiture is a pound of the merchant's flesh. Antonio hubristically agrees.

Act II

In Belmont, the Prince of Morocco takes the casket test. He incorrectly chooses the gold casket – to Portia's considerable relief.

In Venice, Shylock dines with Antonio and Bassanio. While out, he leaves his house in the care of his beautiful daughter, Jessica, unaware she has secretly arranged to elope that night with Lorenzo, furnished with a substantial amount of her father's riches. Now with cash in hand, Bassanio sets sail to Belmont, accompanied by a friend, Gratiano.

Back in Belmont another suitor has arrived: the Prince of Arragon. His choice of the silver casket also proves to be incorrect. Again Portia is very relieved.

Act III

Back in Venice, Antonio's ships are reported lost at sea, necessitating his default on the debt. Shylock bemoans Antonio's misfortune and the subhuman treatment to which Jews are routinely subjected. He has become even more determined to exact revenge on Christians because of his daughter Jessica's betrayal: she has converted to Christianity and married Lorenzo, and has reportedly been on a spending spree in Genoa. Shylock, however, takes much comfort from the schadenfreude of Antonio's prospective doom, and has him arrested.

Back in Belmont, Bassanio successfully passes the casket test. Portia is overjoyed, but a messenger arrives reporting Antonio's dire situation. Portia and Bassanio quickly marry – as do Gratiano and Nerissa. Each new husband is given a ring by his new wife. Bassanio and Gratiano leave for Venice to buy off Shylock.

Meanwhile, Portia sends her servant, Balthazar, to Padua to seek legal counsel on the matter from Bellario, a learned lawyer. She and Nerissa head to Venice.

Act IV

In the court of the Duke of Venice, Shylock point-blank refuses all cash offers to settle - he is single-minded in demanding the forfeiture of the bond.

The Duke defers the legal arguments to a visitor: a young male "doctor of the law" who identifies himself as Balthazar. The doctor and his clerk are Portia and Nerissa (disguised as men) respectively.

As Balthazar, Portia repeatedly asks Shylock to show mercy but he remains unmoved. Unable to dissuade him, the court grants Shylock the penalty, but, as Shylock proceeds, Portia observes that he may remove only “a pound of flesh" – no blood.

Shylock accepts defeat, but Portia then points out that, as a Jew, he has committed a specific offence in attempting to take the life of a Venetian citizen. Accordingly, all of his assets are confiscate, and the Duke is to decide whether he live or die: he is granted clemency on condition he become a Christian and bequeath his estate to Lorenzo and Jessica.

To thank Portia for saving Antonio's life, Bassanio very reluctantly hands her his ring. Nerissa likewise obtains her husband's ring.

Act V

Back at Belmont, Portia and Nerissa each taunts her new husband for the loss of his ring – before revealing their own possession of the rings, and confessing that they were the lawyer and his clerk in disguise.

Portia then advises Antonio that three of his ships have in fact returned safely.

26/04/24 appeal of temp ban

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexAndrews#c-Floquenbeam-20240426215700-Unblock_#2

Latest comment: 5 hours ago This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • filter log • creation log)

Request reason:

I have apparently been blocked for "personal attacks" without any evidence at all of this accusation

Decline reason:

You have, indeed, been making personal attacks, and I see below you have not agreed to stop, so I am declining this request. There is some useful information in WP:Guide to appealing blocks, if you want to try again to get this block lifted early. If not, then if you just wait for it to expire but continue the approach you're using now, you'll just be blocked again. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism", for example here and here. You were warned against such conduct here and here. This block is not just for vandalism, but also for edit warring, which you resumed soon after the protection expired at The Merchant of Venice, despite a warning here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The so called "good-faith contributions of other editors" that you mention were the removal of encyclopedic content; the removal of encyclopedic content is the definition of vandalism. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, it is simply stating a fact.

And the alleged edit-warring that you mention is me repairing that vandalism, namely reinstating the encyclopedic content that had been wrongfully removed. How can you ban a user for repairing vandalism??? AlexAndrews (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding of vandalism is incorrect. I'm not sure that it's worth it to re-explain it to you, since I see multiple editors have already tried. I would be happy to answer specific clarifying questions. You are now aware that continued personal attacks of this type will result in a block. I urge you to adjust your behavior accordingly. I won't block for the above comment, but if you repeat the attacks again your block will be lengthened and you may lose talk page access. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

According to @Valereee:

@AlexAndrews, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. You can find more information at WP:vandalism.

So my understanding of "vandalism" - from the definition supplied by @Valereee - includes the removal of encyclopedic content from articles.

How is my understanding of vandalism incorrect, as you say? AlexAndrews (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis is on "deliberately". When someone removes content because they believe the article is better off without that content, it's not vandalism. You can disagree about the merits of the removal, but you can't call it "vandalism", unless you have some way of showing that their intentions were to harm the project. "Removal of encyclopedic content" is not vandalism, but "malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is. The removal you're objecting to was obviously not malicious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The first reason @Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it:

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

But that reason was false because WP:RS only applies to contentious material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't.

The second reason @KJP1 gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article:

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.

KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore original research on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason.

So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious.

It was therefore vandalism, as I said. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In short, the contributions were not "good-faith" as you stated. AlexAndrews (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock #2 Latest comment: 2 hours ago

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • filter log • creation log)

Request reason:

I have been accused of apparently making "personal attacks". I have pointed out that encyclopedic content I have added has been removed based on falsehoods, ie for bad-faith reasons - the direct opposite to the reason #Firefangledfeathers gave for blocking me.

Why have I been blocked for other users acting in bad faith???

Decline reason:

Doubling down on previous behavior is not one or the recommended appeal procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This has been explained to you by several people now. I am going to block you indefinitely and remove talk page access if you continue to post ridiculous unblock requests. Time spent by admins reviewing unblock requests is valuable, as is time spent by editors trying to answer your questions and explain how you are interpreting policies wrong. You will not be allowed to further waste anyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)