Jump to content

Talk:The Merchant of Venice/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Anti-semitism?

The intro says that the play is deeply racist, which is something that is of course hotly debated but isn't necessarily declared as fact. For example, whether Shylock is justified in his revenge or not is constantly discussed, what with the contrast of his speech, "Hath not a Jew..." and the Christians' response to his desire for revenge in calling him a "devil." Since there is by no means a consensus on whether or not Shylock is a sympathetic character, shouldn't the article also reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.237.131 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro needs some NPOV-ing. While it is true that play is often seen as antisemitic, undeniably a quite important aspect of it, I think that it needs to be mentioned in more balanced way in the intro. I edited accordingly. RespoonsibileSQ (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly mention might be made that the mercilesness of the jew (being of an, at that time, notoriously legalistic culture) is a plot device to illustrate the mercilessness of the law. As empirical observation, "as the emperor sees it" (the law) was, at the time the play was written, being shown by such notables as Isaac Newton to be in error much philosophical discussion of that time involved correction of error. The Christian fundamental of confession of error, repentence of it and mercy for it is fundamental to correction of error. The law, having been demonstrated to be imperfect in that it can be swayed to either side of the case, and merciless on either side cannot be looked to for the mercy of correction. The Christian fundamentals of confession of error (recognition of error), repentence of error (commitment to not repete error), and mercy for error are shown to be ascendendant over law and fundamental to the enlightenment and the modern age as represented by Venice of the time. The illustration of mercy herein lends not to the erroneous belief in the perfection of either law or of man but to the Christian belief in their perfectability. 98.164.120.241 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Was there plagiarism???

The laughing and crying masks that we are all familiar with, may have their origin as masks worn in Greek Theater, to portray Heraclitus and Democritus. The weeping philosopher makes an appearance in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice,which may suggest that Shakespeare's literary theme had a Greek origin.

The literary theme of the Merchant of Venice has a character, Heraclitus, from 580 BC., more than 2000 years before Shakespeare. This raises the question of whether the theme had been handed down by Poets (writers) and then theatrical troupes, to Shakespeare's era. First there is the reality, then there is the writing of it, then if the reality and the writing are good enough, there is the dramatic presentation of it. Clearly it may have been an ancient Greek Classic before Shakespeare acquired it from an intermediary. The word plagiarism,by the intermediary,whispers in my ear. Layman1 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Facebook Adaption

I think we should remove this from under adaptions and cultural references. The person who wrote this part of the articles is obvious self-promoting this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountHacker (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct authorship

The Shakespeare from Stratford was not a writer. The first section was changed to suggest a more likely author despite the persistence of the "Shakespeare" myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorPopper (talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For background, please read Shakespeare authorship question and browse WP:ARBSAQ. At Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE applies—that means articles report mainstream scholarship and do not promote fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Merchant of Venice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Character descriptions

The following was recently added to the page. It seems to be WP:OR (for more details follw that link), but I'm copying it here so that we can discuss whether there is anything here we would like to incorporate into the article. AndyJones (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters Description

Antonio: Antonio was caring, selfless person who puts others before himself. In merchant of Venice, Antonio knows that he is old and dying. He had a good life himself and wanted Bossanio to have a good life too. He knew that Bossanio wanted to go to Venice to meet a young lady named Portia, but didn’t have the money because he had invested it on his ships. Antonio was willing to risk loosing a pound of flesh after selflessly borrowing money off Shylock, to give to Bossanio. This act depicts the kind person that Antonio is and shows how much he cares for others

Shylock: Shylock was a mean old man who cared for nothing other than money, gems and material possessions. Throughout the whole book he is trying to con others and make them worse off, just so that he can have more money, or get revenge on people he doesn’t like. An example of this is when Antonio wants to borrow money from Shylock to kindly help Bossanio pay for a trip to Venice to meet a girl named Portia. Shylock agrees to lend the money, but only because if Antonio doesn’t pay back in time, the bond says that Shylock can cut a pound of flesh from Antonio. Shylock may not have liked Antonio, but wanting to kill him over it goes way to far. It shows how unkind and selfish Shylock is to other people. Another thing that portrays Shylock’s character is when Jessica runs away with some of shylocks Jews. Shylock is screaming out “My jewels, My Jessica, My jewels, My Jessica.” He cant decide what he loves more, when he should choose his daughter.

Portia: Portia was a kind, intelligent girl, who went to many lengths to prevent people from getting hurt. She is the daughter of a rich man, she would had quality schooling in her childhood, which would have lead to the knowledge of law that she showed while judging Antonio’s case. This court case is an example of Portia’s willingness to help out others in need. When she heard that Antonio was going to court, she went to all the trouble of organizing the lending of her cousins judge suit, and spending her time judging just to help out a friend in need. This action show how much she cares for her friends.


Jessica: Jessica is the daughter of shylock and she Is extremely well known for the stealing of her fathers property and his ducats. Shylock (her father) is very angry because of what she did. Shylock couldn’t believe his own daughter would betray him.

Bassiano: Bassiano is properly the most romantic person in the whole play. He hopes that he will pick the night box so that he can take Portia’s hand in marriage. If he is to marry Portia it would give him enough money to pay back all his debts to his good friend Antonio.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 06:30, April 3, 2008

Shylock is a strong character . He eventually earns sympathy from viewers and readers at the end of Act 4 Scene 2 . Shylock was a negative character but not a villain . All villainy is negativity but not all negativity is villainy Rimi07032003 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rimi07032003: Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the topic of the article. (See the talk page guidelines for more information.) Also, you've added a comment to a ten-year-old thread. Unless you're replying to a recent comment, please consider placing any guideline-compliant comments in a new section. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"English society in the Elizabethan era has been described as "judeophobic"."

Does this really need to be watered down as such? It *was* judeophobic.50.194.115.156 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My inclination is to say no, it doesn't need to be watered down. The citation does go to a book, though, that might make that qualification. (It isn't available online, and I don't have ready access to a hard copy.) If a change is made, I'd rather see something like "Judeophobia was widespread in English society in the Elizabethan era", which at least reflects that the society wasn't universally prejudiced. Does "widespread" seem to weak? "Nearly universal"? Maybe we can find a second source. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
A couple points without having actually looked into this: Elizabethan England's relationship with the jews was… complicated. To describe them as antisemitic in the modern sense would be misleading: it would be more accurate to say they were superstitious, nationalistic, and xenophobic. Jews were not, by far, the only people subjected to the sort of prejudice, stereotyping, and fear. And the causes of that prejudice are complicated: religion was politics, and jews were other to both Catholics and Protestants, and the legacy of the medieval stereotypes of jews in the exemplum colored perceptions for people who rarely or never actually saw any jews (see Jessica (The Merchant of Venice)#Character sources for one example). That being said, the issue definitely shouldn't be watered down; but some context and nuance will be needed. And, finally, judeophobia as a term is nonsense: it implies pathology (any -phobia is something you would expect to find in the DSM V). Antisemitism may have problems too, but judeophobia should be avoided unless specifically attributed to a particular speaker and it otherwise has due relevance.
In any case… Thanks for looking at this. It's an important aspect to get right in the article! --Xover (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping in to add a little context to the last part of what you said. The –phobia ending is commonly used in various contexts without implying a psychiatric issue (e.g., Islamophobia, homophobia and your own example, xenophobia—or hydrophobia, for that matter). If one is going to pick apart terms, antisemitism is problematic too, since the term "Semitic" is applied to some non-Jews, but that's really neither here nor there. Judeophobia is little used, compared to antisemitism, but perhaps the word can be found in the source. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about sources

Does anyone else think the section on sources should be expanded? What exactly is the relationship between The Merchant of Venice and Marlowe's The Jew of Malta - that is listed as a source in the template, but not here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Authorship

"Shakespeare" was a pseudonym. The person from Stratford was never associated with "Shakespeare." No one considered the businessman was Stratford a poet, and he and his family appear to have been mostly illiterate. The true likely author was Edward de Vere. How much longer will these ridiculous lies remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktrainwasright (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

At least as long as they are scholarly mainstream. If you want to read that the true likely author was Edward de Vere, you'll have to read outside WP, but the internet is vast. Perhaps Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#External_links has something you'll enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Critical history cut from the article

Emgolden23 added and Gråbergs Gråa Sång just removed the following from the article (which I agree with, btw), so I'm stashing this here for possible future use in a massively expanded "Critical history" section (see e.g. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream for examples of such a section).

stashed text

While it is difficult to locate reviews of early performances and adaptations of The Merchant of Venice, there are many reviews of contemporary adaptations of the Shakespeare play. The Broadway production of the play in 2010, starring Al Pacino as Shylock, was widely accepted by audiences and critics alike. Journalist Ben Brantley from The New York Times published a review of the performance, emphasizing its more nuanced, multi-faceted characters and its critique of capitalism. Brantley notes how "this 'Merchant' exudes elegance, but always in the service of a vision of a society that is, at its core, most inelegant."[1]

References

  1. ^ Brantley, Ben (2011-02-20). "Love and Dirty, Sexy Ducats". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-06.

And we really should cover the critical history, and expand the performances and adaptations. Eventually. --Xover (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I hear Robert Greene was speechless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The value of a ducat

Someone just added an estimate of the value of 3,000 ducats to the article (converted to current U.S. dollars based on gold bullion value). I am not so sure this is helpful. It is also unsourced. It is not clear to me that Shakespeare himself knew the value of Venetian ducats or intended for his audience to know their value. My impression is that, for the purposes of the play, "3,000 ducats" is just a plot device for the concept of "a lot of money" (although an amount within the borrowing means of a prosperous merchant tradesman and within the lending means of a prosperous moneylender). I am also not so sure that it is really very valid to attempt to convert the ducats of the late 1500s into the dollars of today, based on current gold exchange rates. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, so I reverted it. --Xover (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"Someone" is "DavidForthoffer." I was not an anonymous poster.
It would be easy to source my post. Just link "ducats" to Ducat#Gold_ducat_of_Venice, unless you think the arithmetic (converting 3.50 grams into ounces, and multiplying by a cost of gold bullion) needs to be spelled out. Although commentaries on The Merchant of Venice talk about "a lot of money," where in the play is "a lot of money" mentioned? Frankly, 3,000 ducats is not just "a lot of money." It is a life-changing amount of money. When I originally read the play, I was not aware that 3,000 ducats was a life-changing amount of money; I vaguely recall thinking it was something on the order of $3,000, which also is "an amount within the borrowing means of a prosperous merchant tradesman and within the lending means of a prosperous moneylender." But when I realized it was a life-changing amount of money, I thought that was significant, and altered my perception of the plot. Whole careers were at stake. It is worth sharing. As for the validity of the comparison, the most valid way of conveying the value of 3,000 ducats to today's values is to compare the purchasing power of 3,000 ducats then with today's purchasing power. That's what tying the value of a ducat to the value of gold does. I also think the technique of explaining the purchasing power using a particular price of gold bullion (i.e., about what gold is selling for now) is excellent. It insulates the information from dependency on the current price of gold, while still making the point that 3,000 ducats is a life-changing amount of money. BarrelProof and Xover, you obviously have a great interest in The Merchant of Venice. I ask you to realize that it helps the reader of the play understand what is at stake. I ask you to convey to the reader of this article the magnitude of the loan. I leave it in your hands. Thank you. DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@DavidForthoffer: The problem here is, primarily, that your estimate is original research on several levels. First of all, it's not a given that the play refers to Ducat#Gold ducat of Venice (it could be the Byzantine coin, or any one of the different Venetian variants, or simply the customary value associated with it, i.e. the mentioned 124 soldi). The main critical editions of the play (The Arden Shakespeare and The Oxford Shakespeare) are careful to hedge here and say Shylock probably means the Venetian Ducat when he talks about "Christian Ducat". Further, the raw gold value of a coin is rarely the most appropriate way to value it. Case in point, Halio values it at 9 Shilling, which, adjusted for inflation, would have been equivalent to £27,400 in 2015 ($41861). This assumes that 1) Shylock really means Venetian Ducats; 2) the base value of 9 shillings is correct; 3) inflation adjustment is really the correct method to calculate its present value; 4) the year from which to calculate the value is 1596, when the play was written, and not an arbitrary year between 1284 and 1596; 5) Shakespeare's idea of a Ducat's value had any proximity to its actual value (he may have been thinking of £3000, equivalent to £548,009 in 2015). Any value we give in the article based on such methods would have these problems. The best we could do would be to cite what the reliable sources tell us.
And while I wouldn't revert or object to an addition that is based on a high-quality reliable source, I also don't really currently feel like it's really needed. For me, the "3000 Ducats" is like any fictional sum of money, it doesn't really mean anything or bear any relationship to any real currency, it's the context that indicates its value (and since here it's secured against Antonio's commercial interests, a shipment of goods, it's clear it's a lot of money for a single person, and obviously clear that Bassanio can't raise it himself, or he wouldn't have borrowed it from Antonio).
PS. When BarrelProof used "someone" above, I believe they were simply trying to phrase their post neutrally and according to the convention on Wikipedia of discussing the edit and not the editor. I don't believe the intent was to imply that the edit had been made by some anonymous, "drive-by", user. --Xover (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for the insights. I think the primary problem with my estimate is not so much that it is original research but that my research is unreliable. I like your point about the raw gold value of a coin. Also, little research comparing the dollar value of gold bullion with the population shows that in the past several decades shows that the ratio has varied by an order of magnitude. Furthermore, I see that the population growth in Africa is greater by an order of magnitude than the population growth in Europe. That, along with your points, reaffirms that we have no reliable idea of what Shakespeare meant the value of 3000 ducats to be.
I do think it matters whether he was referring to a life-changing amount of money versus merely an amount that that Bassanio did not have. I perceived my emotions to be radically more intense now when I thought $450,000 was at stake compared to my youth when I thought only a few thousand dollars was at stake. On that basis, I suspect Shakespeare had 3000 ducats referring to a life-changing amount of money. Of course, that also is an unreliable method of concluding that Shakespeare must have meant. So even though the magnitude matters, we do not know enough about the magnitude to comment about it in the article.
P.S. When someone wants to talk about an edit without raising implications about the editor, I think it is better to just refer to the edit (such as, "An edit was recently made that added an estimate ...") instead of also mentioning the edit.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Ali Baba and the [beyond countability] ... (European culture, a gros is 60, semitic culture, 40 is more than you can count); the pound of flesh closest to the heart is located between the legs so you may just freeze it, if you want to remove it in a clean way; lead can be pronounced the way you think, or it may be pronounced as an imperative, to lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:66FC:0:18F7:9832:3624:9595 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Emilia Lanier

Given that one of the primary candidates put forward by anti-Stratfordians for authorship of Shakespeare’s plays was Jewish herself, it seems like one of them would have commented on the implications of that hypothesis for the antisemitism debate. Anyone aware of any sources that could be used? 2604:2D80:6984:4D00:0:0:0:6EA0 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I never noticed she was on List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. Of course it depends on sources, but it may be too WP:FRINGE to include here. I don't see any SAQ at Emilia Lanier (and it says "It has been suggested, and disputed that Lanier's family was Jewish or of partly Jewish descent."), so I'm not sure about "primary". You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be added to the Category "English Renaissance plays"

This article is missing from the "English Renaissance plays" category. (It's the only one of Shakespeare's plays missing there.) The article is locked now, so someone else needs to add it. 75.64.225.188 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The category Category:Plays by William Shakespeare is in Category:English Renaissance plays, and consequently per WP:SUBCAT, none of the individual plays should be in the Renaissance category. Those that are should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

More impartial sympathetic vs antagonist section?

Currently the "Antagonist" and "Sympathetic" sections are written very differently. The "Antagonist" section only presents information supporting the idea that Shylock was written to paint Jews in a negative light. The "Sympathetic" section presents both sides of the argument. Read together, this gives the reader the general idea that the "Antagonist" theory is more correct.

The "Antagonist" section comments with certainty about the play being used to paint Jews in a negative light, while the "Sympathetic" section comments that it is difficult to tell if Shylock is being portrayed sympathetically, even though the play has equally certainly been used to portray Jews in a positive light.

Suggested overhaul:

  • "English society in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era has been described as "judeophobic". English Jews had been expelled under Edward I in 1290 and were not permitted to return until 1656 under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Poet John Donne, who was Dean of St Paul's Cathedral and a contemporary of Shakespeare, gave a sermon in 1624 perpetuating the Blood Libel – the entirely unsubstantiated anti-Semitic lie that Jews ritually murdered Christians to drink their blood and achieve salvation. In Venice and in some other places, Jews were required to wear a red hat at all times in public to make sure that they were easily identified, and had to live in a ghetto"*

This section should be moved up to under the first header "Shylock and the antisemitism debate," as it only provides background information of the era the play was written and is information used for both sides of the debate. The fact that To Kill A Mockingbird was written during a time when Black Americans didn't have rights does not mean that it is an unsympathetic portrayal of Black Americans. It might also be pertinent to note that it wasn't too long after the play came out that Jews were allowed back into England, with much of society opening up to religious debate.

  • "It is difficult to know whether the sympathetic reading of Shylock is entirely due to changing sensibilities among readers – or whether Shakespeare, a writer who created complex, multi-faceted characters, deliberately intended this reading."

Get rid of this sentence. It is not supported by the monologue nor by any third party -- it is not difficult at all to read this monologue as sympathetic. The express purpose of Shylock in this moment is to get his audience to sympathize with him. I can't even find any quote in any outside source that does not view this monologue as sympathetic. It's like saying that "We don't know whether Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' is about suicide or if that reading is due to changing sensibilities among the readers."

There is also information left out of the "sympathetic" section which surprises me (reading the opinions of the people in this talk section surprises me too). The most important thing to note is that the only action that people perceive Shylock as being "evil" for is upholding his end of the contract. The only way to read Merchant as antisemitic is if you yourself hold different values for Jews and Christians and don't apply the Christians' own stated values to their own displayed actions. Shylock must let revenge go and give mercy...but the Christian characters are content to keep their revenge, showing no mercy to Shylock.

Here is one fairly balanced article that includes more of the information I was talking about on the sympathetic side --

[On Portia:] "Although she waxes eloquent about grace, let’s not forget, says Heschel, 'the way she deceives Shylock is through revenge, and hair-splitting legalism.' She betrays her entire oration about showing people mercy when she fails to show Shylock mercy. Of course, Portia’s hypocrisy should come as no surprise — she announces it during her very first scene. 'I can easier teach twenty what were good to be do than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching,' she tells her maid, Nerissa. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or-not-shakespeares-merchant-venice-anti-semitic-180958867/

I would definitely suggest keeping the information in each section supportive of their respective sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:c0e4:5673:a4d7:2409 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I currently have no opinion of my own, but hopefully other editors will, you never know about WP talkpages. You have but some effort into this, so I wanted to mention that you can "advertise" the discussion a little. If you want, put messages at for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, saying basically "There is a discussion about X going on at Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice#More_impartial_sympathetic_vs_antagonist_section?, your input is welcome." That may increase participation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

this makes no sense at all... we students expect more content due to our class project work and thus need more content. 223.226.123.112 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Shylock should be treated fair in the court and the judge treated good and gave him what he wanted. Kylerdaws55 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No source for Nicholas Rowe's opinion

There's no source in the text. Here's one.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or-not-shakespeares-merchant-venice-anti-semitic-180958867/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.126.67 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

what is the play most famous for?

The Answer surely is for "a pound of flesh" (40 million answers on Google) and not "Hath not a Jew eyes" (1 million hits). Telaviv1 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Recommend changing 

 "contrasted with their obviously superior Christian value of mercy"

to 

 "contrasted with their supposedly obviously superior Christian value of mercy"

to clarify that this is an interpretation. Alsetmusic (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The view is clearly attributed to "Elizabethan Christians" in the work, and is not an actual interpretation of values in Wikivoice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The merchant of venice class 10th textual questions

Please add the questions and answers 110.224.225.189 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like something that should be on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

https://merchantofvenice1936.co.uk/

New production of Merchant of Venice set in London in 1936 with Shylock as a woman. 2A01:4B00:A8E2:1D00:3868:3945:E9C1:DBBF (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit for page

While it might be a point of contention on whether Shakespeare intended "the merchant of Venice" to be antisemitic, the play contains blatant instances of antisemitic by modern standards.

"Merchant of Venice" perpetuates common Jewish stereotypes and antisemitic tropes through its antagonizism of Shylock. Shakespeare places Shylock as the antithesis of Antonio and the non-Jewish characters, by portraying Shylock as a greedy moneylender who is consumed by money and revenge.

An egregious instance of antisemitism occurs in Act I, scene III, when Antonio tells Bassanio, "Hie thee, gentle Jew.//The Hebrew will turn Christian; he grows kind." in reference to Shylock. Throughout the play, Shylock's identification with Judaism is highlighted and reinforced; for example, in Act II, scene II, Lancelet decides to resign as Shylock's servant, and exclaims, "to him, father, for I//am a Jew if I serve the Jew any longer". The conclusion of the play is a culmination of the overarching antisemitic theme. Shylock is subdued through his forced conversion to Christianity, and is spared execution by the Christian characters. This forced conversion can be perceived as a merciful and compassionate act by the non-Jewish characters as well as an expression of the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. 2600:1000:B161:275B:392C:D728:EF71:6236 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the way that Shylock is portrayed (in the image that shows Shylock being chased by children) suggests that he is a conniving old man who is a coward in the face of his folly (this seems to represent the entirety of the people of the Jewish faith at the time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco9971 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

By definition it isn't antisemitic however it is surely antijudaic, which isn't much better. The intolerance is religious, not racial - the Jew is offered conversion as an alternative to persecution. Antisemitism is, as far as I'm aware, unheard of prior to the 1930's. I'm well aware that Jews were brutally persecuted since Christianity gained power with the conversion of Constantine. Hitler's antisemitism was a small but significant development of what had gone before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.185.228 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment

@Pramish Chandra, Shakespeare is (according to WP) the third most translated individual author in the world, and Shakespeare's influence remains significant and quite visible in all kinds of fiction [1].

Of course he is to varying extent taught in schools the world over, but there is no reason to point that out in this specific article. Unlike cricket, even non-Commonwealth countries know about him.[Joke] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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 [2] 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.[3] "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, [4] 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 [5][6]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [7], 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 [8] 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 [9]
"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 [10]. 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 [11] 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:[12]. I would restore the article to this version [13] 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 [14] 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[15] 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 [16]. 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:[17]. And 2 threads at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

As Daniel demonstrated in the film Stargate, for a Nietzschean Ubermensch to be able to prove the scholars and so-called experts wrong that Nietzschean Ubermensch first needs to be given the opportunity to prove that the scholars and so-called experts are wrong.
So it's a shame that your account has been blocked through the efforts of a small number of editors that don't want you to have that opportunity.
Let's just hope you don't suffer the same fate as that other most famous Nietzschean Ubermensch: Jesus. Road Block 24 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Or Hitler. EEng 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Funnilly enough, Hitler was not a Nietzschean Ubermensch. That is just propaganda that has been put about to discredit Nietzsche's work after his death (you might want to ask yourself why someone would want to go to the effort of doing so - follow the money, as the saying goes - but as your comment demonstrates, it has been successful in getting false information propagated via Wikipedia). See the very good BBC documentary "Genius of the Modern World (pt2/3): Nietzsche" by Bettany Hughes.
And I'm also unaware that Hitler proved any scholars or so-called experts wrong. But otherwise, thank you for your most valuable and informative contribution. Road Block 24 (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
What, no "witty", laconic comeback @EEng?
And not even an apology for spreading false information on Wikipedia?
The BBC webpage for the Nietszche episode of the "Genius of the Modern World" documentary series says:[1]

Bettany Hughes goes in search of the beliefs of a man whose work is amongst the most devastatingly manipulated and misinterpreted in philosophical history. Nietzsche's dislike of systems and of seeking truths left his ideas ambiguous and sometimes incoherent. It was this that made him vulnerable to interpretation, and as a result his thoughts - which warned against the very notion of a political system like totalitarianism - were manipulated to strengthen its ideals.

Vocally opposed to anti-Semitism, his anti-Semitic sister made sure he became the poster boy for Hitler's drive for an Aryan ideal. Anti-nationalistic, he came to symbolise a regime he would have loathed. His philosophical quest led him to isolation and ultimately madness, but his ideas helped shape the intellectual landscape of the modern world.

— https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07h0hg9
So propaganda has successfully misrepresented Nietzsche's work, while user @AlexAndrews has been blocked for trying to expose the fact that Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice has also been misrepresented.
Is it common for Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of propaganda and misinformation, or it is just on the subject of anti-semitism? Road Block 24 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
You're making my point for me. The Nazis imagined themselves to be ubermenschen -- just as you do, Alex Andrews. By the way, how do you get into Oxford knowing absolutely nothing about Shakespeare? EEng 10:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
So still no apology for using Wikipedia to spread propaganda and false information about anti-semitism? Road Block 24 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07h0hg9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice/Archive_2&oldid=1244669045"