text:
Talk:The Merchant of Venice

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, 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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
 * "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 . 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 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)
 * 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 . 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 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 here:. I would restore the article to this version per that comment, discussion above + the unreasonable addition of plot-content, which is already fairly massive, and as  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 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 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:. And 2 threads at Administrative action review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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:. And 2 threads at Administrative action review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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:. And 2 threads at 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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:
 * "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."

 * 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? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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)

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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 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.) <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So long as it doesn't get used for block evasion it matters little. Xover (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm planning to convert everything to short refs, yes. Xover (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll follow that model henceforth, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Procedures
Pointless arguments are self-sustaining. Replying to a comment means that the other person is likely to respond. Then someone replies to the response which elicits another response. And so ad infinitum.

The correct procedure is to say nothing unless it is believed there is a problem in the article. In that case, start a new section with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. Edit warring against consensus will not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 * "If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate."
 * The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy".
 * The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
 * "the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
 * Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that.
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User @AlexAndrews
I see that user @AlexAndrews was blocked from Wikipedia after making the following comment (in section "Procedures"):

 * "If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate."
 * The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy".
 * The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
 * "the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
 * Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that.
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)}}
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)}}
 * In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Is there a reason why user @Johnuniq then hid the above comment by @AlexAndrews from readers of this talk page? Road Block 24 (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes there's a reason: it's sophomoric nonsense showing you are unable to comprehend basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please stop referring to yourself in the third person; we're not fools. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * / - I don't know if you are planning to make an appeal against your ban at some future point but, if you are, running a sock puppet during the term of your ban isn't going to help. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But... but... you can't tell AlexAndrews what to do! He's an ubermensch, and has the right to do things we inferiors aren't allowed to do! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And FTR, AlexAndrews is merely blocked, not banned -- yet. But the above, combined with whatever he did to get a 6-month suspension of UTRS access, may get him there in record time. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you have resorted to casting apsersions to avoid answering my question, so allow me to ask you again: is there a reason why user @Johnuniq then hid the above comment by @AlexAndrews from readers of this talk page?
 * The reason I ask is that, based on the evidence from this talk page, Wikipedia is being used to promote propaganda and false information about anti-semitism. So I would like to know if it is common for Wikipedia to be used to promote propaganda and false information, or if it is just on the subject of anti-semitism that Wikipedia is used to promote propaganda and false information. Road Block 24 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

the Indies or West Indies?
On this change, I don't actually know which is more correct, though I suspect it's "the Indies", maybe someone else does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indies??? I did some WP:OR and it turns out that in 16th-century Venice they didn't have motion pictures. But maybe Alex Andrews can work in some facts about how Shakespeare was predicting that indies would be a way for future Christian filmmakers to escape Jewish control of the entertainment industry. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, now, one shouldn't poke a sleeping debating society member. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This almost certainly refers to the East Indies. Antonio's trading ventures are explicitly said to include spices, which at that time was almost synonymous with the Indies. The Caribbean was at this time a festering pot of pirates and mercantile warfare unlikely to be considered a safe trading route (which Antonio is certain his ships are; hence why he doesn't hesitate to offer a pound of his own flesh as bond), and the main exports were sugarcane, molasses, and tobacco (spices are more recent).There's some controversy over whether Antonio's diversity of trade routes is historically accurate, but this is because the pre-Suez canal route was over land to the Red Sea (long, risky, expensive) or the long way around the Cape of Good Hope (challenging) for which the Dutch were, apparently, the only one's technologically advanced enough to exploit. Either way the destination is the northern Indian Ocean. Xover (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xover. No doubt he sent ships to the deserts of Bohemia. For potatoes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Merchant of Venice


text:
Promiscuous mode

In computer networking, promiscuous mode is a mode for a wired network interface controller (NIC) or wireless network interface controller (WNIC) that causes the controller to pass all traffic it receives to the central processing unit (CPU) rather than passing only the frames that the controller is specifically programmed to receive. This mode is normally used for packet sniffing that takes place on a router or on a computer connected to a wired network or one being part of a wireless LAN. Interfaces are placed into promiscuous mode by software bridges often used with hardware virtualization.

In IEEE 802 networks such as Ethernet or IEEE 802.11, each frame includes a destination MAC address. In non-promiscuous mode, when a NIC receives a frame, it drops it unless the frame is addressed to that NIC's MAC address or is a broadcast or multicast addressed frame. In promiscuous mode, however, the NIC allows all frames through, thus allowing the computer to read frames intended for other machines or network devices.

Many operating systems require superuser privileges to enable promiscuous mode. A non-routing node in promiscuous mode can generally only monitor traffic to and from other nodes within the same collision domain (for Ethernet and IEEE 802.11) or ring (for Token Ring). Computers attached to the same Ethernet hub satisfy this requirement, which is why network switches are used to combat malicious use of promiscuous mode. A router may monitor all traffic that it routes.

Promiscuous mode is often used to diagnose network connectivity issues. There are programs that make use of this feature to show the user all the data being transferred over the network. Some protocols like FTP and Telnet transfer data and passwords in clear text, without encryption, and network scanners can see this data. Therefore, computer users are encouraged to stay away from insecure protocols like telnet and use more secure ones such as SSH.

Detection
As promiscuous mode can be used in a malicious way to capture private data in transit on a network, computer security professionals might be interested in detecting network devices that are in promiscuous mode. In promiscuous mode, some software might send responses to frames even though they were addressed to another machine. However, experienced sniffers can prevent this (e.g., using carefully designed firewall settings). An example is sending a ping (ICMP echo request) with the wrong MAC address but the right IP address. If an adapter is operating in normal mode, it will drop this frame, and the IP stack never sees or responds to it. If the adapter is in promiscuous mode, the frame will be passed on, and the IP stack on the machine (to which a MAC address has no meaning) will respond as it would to any other ping. The sniffer can prevent this by configuring a firewall to block ICMP traffic.

Some applications that use promiscuous mode
The following applications and applications classes use promiscuous mode.

 * Packet Analyzer
 * NetScout Sniffer
 * Wireshark (formerly Ethereal)
 * tcpdump
 * OmniPeek
 * Capsa
 * ntop
 * Firesheep
 * Virtual machine
 * VMware's VMnet bridging
 * VirtualBox bridging mode
 * Containers
 * Docker with optional Macvlan driver on Linux
 * Cryptanalysis
 * Aircrack-ng
 * AirSnort
 * Cain and Abel
 * Network monitoring
 * KisMAC (used for WLAN)
 * Kismet
 * IPTraf
 * Snort
 * CommView
 * Gaming
 * XLink Kai

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Promiscuous mode


text:
The Division Bell

The Division Bell is the fourteenth studio album by the English rock band Pink Floyd, released on 28 March 1994 by EMI Records in the United Kingdom and on 5 April by Columbia Records in the United States.

The second Pink Floyd album recorded without founding member Roger Waters, The Division Bell was written mostly by guitarist and singer David Gilmour and keyboardist Richard Wright. It features Wright's first lead vocal on a Pink Floyd album since The Dark Side of the Moon (1973). Gilmour's fiancée, the novelist Polly Samson, co-wrote many of the lyrics, which deal with themes of communication. It was the last Pink Floyd studio album to be composed of entirely new material, and the last recorded with Wright, who died in 2008.

Recording took place in locations including the band's Britannia Row Studios and Gilmour's houseboat, Astoria. The production team included longtime Pink Floyd collaborators such as producer Bob Ezrin, engineer Andy Jackson, saxophonist Dick Parry and bassist Guy Pratt.

The Division Bell received mixed reviews, but reached number one in more than 10 countries, including the UK and the US. In the US, it was certified double platinum in 1994 and triple platinum in 1999. Pink Floyd promoted it with a tour of the US and Europe; the tour sold more than 5 million tickets and made around $100 million in gross income. A live album and video, Pulse, was released in 1995. Some of the unused material from the Division Bell sessions became part of Pink Floyd's next album, The Endless River (2014).

Recording
In January 1993, guitarist David Gilmour, drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Richard Wright began improvising new material in sessions at the remodelled Britannia Row Studios. They recruited bassist Guy Pratt, who had joined them on their Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour; according to Mason, Pratt's playing influenced the mood of the music. Without the legal problems that had dogged the production of their 1987 album A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Gilmour was at ease. If he felt the band were making progress, he would record them on a two-track DAT recorder. At one point, Gilmour surreptitiously recorded Wright playing, capturing material that formed the basis for three pieces of music.

After about two weeks, the band had around 65 pieces of music. With engineer Andy Jackson and co-producer Bob Ezrin, production moved to Gilmour's houseboat and recording studio, Astoria. The band voted on each track, and whittled the material down to about 27 pieces. Eliminating some tracks, and merging others, they arrived at about 11 songs. Song selection was based upon a system of points, whereby all three members would award marks out of ten to each candidate song, a system skewed by Wright awarding his songs ten points each and the others none. Wright, having resigned under pressure from bassist Roger Waters in 1979, was not contractually a full member of the band, which upset him. Wright reflected: "It came very close to a point where I wasn't going to do the album, because I didn't feel that what we'd agreed was fair." Wright received his first songwriting credits on any Pink Floyd album since 1975's Wish You Were Here.

Gilmour's fiancée, the novelist Polly Samson, also received songwriting credits. Initially, her role was limited to providing encouragement for Gilmour, but she helped him write "High Hopes", a song about Gilmour's childhood in Cambridge. She co-wrote a further six songs, which bothered Ezrin. Gilmour said that Samson's contributions had "ruffled the management's [feathers]", but Ezrin later reflected that her presence had been inspirational for Gilmour, and that she "pulled the whole album together". She also helped Gilmour with the cocaine addiction he had developed following his divorce.

Keyboardist Jon Carin, percussionist Gary Wallis, and backing vocalists including Sam Brown and Momentary Lapse tour singer Durga McBroom were brought in before recording began. The band moved to Olympic Studios and recorded most of the tracks over the space of a week. After a summer break, they returned to Astoria to record more backing tracks. Ezrin worked on the drum sounds, and Pink Floyd collaborator Michael Kamen provided the string arrangements, which were recorded at Abbey Road Studio Two by Steve McLaughlin. Dick Parry played saxophone on his first Pink Floyd album for almost 20 years, on "Wearing the Inside Out", and Chris Thomas created the final mix. Between September and December recording and mixing sessions were held at Metropolis Studios in Chiswick and the Creek Recording Studios in London. In September, Pink Floyd performed at a celebrity charity concert at Cowdray House, in Midhurst. The album was mastered at the Mastering Lab in Los Angeles, by Doug Sax and James Guthrie.

Jackson edited unused material from the Division Bell sessions, described by Mason as ambient music, into an hour-long composition tentatively titled The Big Spliff, but Pink Floyd decided not to release it. Some of The Big Spliff was used to create the band's next album, The Endless River (2014).

Instrumentation
With the aid of Gilmour's guitar technician, Phil Taylor, Carin located some of Pink Floyd's older keyboards from storage, including a Farfisa organ. Sounds sampled from these instruments were used on "Take It Back" and "Marooned". Additional keyboards were played by Carin, along with Bob Ezrin. Durga McBroom supplied backing vocals alongside Sam Brown, Carol Kenyon, Jackie Sheridan, and Rebecca Leigh-White.

"What Do You Want from Me" is influenced by Chicago blues, and "Poles Apart" contains folksy overtones. Gilmour's improvised guitar solos on "Marooned" used a DigiTech Whammy pedal to pitch-shift the guitar notes over an octave. On "Take It Back", he used a Gibson J-200 guitar through a Zoom effects unit, played with an EBow, an electronic device which produces sounds similar to a bow.

Themes
The Division Bell deals with themes of communication and the idea that talking can solve many problems. In the Studio radio host Redbeard suggested that the album offers "the very real possibility of transcending it all, through shivering moments of grace". Songs such as "Poles Apart" and "Lost for Words" have been interpreted by fans and critics as references to the estrangement between Pink Floyd and former band member Roger Waters, who left in 1985, however Gilmour denied this and said: "People can invent and relate to a song in their personal ways but it's a little late at this point for us to be conjuring Roger up." The title refers to the division bell rung in the British parliament to announce a vote. Drummer Nick Mason said: "It's about people making choices, yeas or nays."

Produced a few years after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, "A Great Day for Freedom" juxtaposes the general euphoria of the fall of the Berlin Wall with the subsequent wars and ethnic cleansing, particularly in the former Yugoslavia. Audio samples of Stephen Hawking, originally recorded for a BT television advertisement, were used in "Keep Talking"; Gilmour was so moved by Hawking's sentiment in the advert that he contacted the advertising company for permission to use the recordings. Mason said it felt "politically incorrect to take ideas from advertising but it seemed a very relevant piece". At the end of the album, Gilmour's stepson Charlie is heard hanging up the telephone receiver on Pink Floyd manager Steve O'Rourke, who had pleaded to be allowed to appear on a Pink Floyd album.

Title and packaging
To avoid competing against other album releases, as had happened with A Momentary Lapse, Pink Floyd set a deadline of April 1994, at which point they would begin a new tour. By January of that year, however, the band still had not decided on an album title. Titles considered included Pow Wow and Down to Earth. At a dinner one night, writer Douglas Adams, spurred by the promise of a payment to his favourite charity, the Environmental Investigation Agency, suggested The Division Bell, a term which appears in "High Hopes".

Longtime Floyd collaborator Storm Thorgerson provided the album artwork. He erected two large metal heads, each the height of a double-decker bus, in a field near Stuntney, Cambridgeshire. The sculptures were positioned together and photographed in profile, and can be seen as two faces talking to each other or as a single, third face. Thorgerson said the "third absent face" was a reference to Syd Barrett. The sculptures were devised by Keith Breeden, and constructed by John Robertson. Ely Cathedral is visible on the horizon. The pictures were shot in February for optimal lighting conditions. In 2001, the sculptures were in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio. In 2017, they were moved to the London Victoria and Albert Museum for display in a Pink Floyd exhibition. An alternate version of the cover photo, featuring two 7.5 m stone sculptures by Aden Hynes, was used on the compact cassette release and the tour brochure.

Release and promotion
On 10 January 1994 a press reception to announce The Division Bell and the tour was held at a former US Naval Air Station in North Carolina, in the US. A purpose-built Skyship 600 airship, manufactured in the UK, toured the US until it returned to Weeksville, and was destroyed by a thunderstorm on 27 June. Pieces of the aircraft were sold as souvenirs. The band held another reception, in the UK, on 21 March. This time they used an A60 airship, translucent, and painted to look like a fish, which took journalists on a tour of London. The airship, which was lit internally so it glowed in the night sky, was also flown in northern Europe.

During the Division Bell tour, an anonymous person using the name Publius posted on an internet newsgroup, inviting fans to solve a riddle supposedly concealed in the album. The message was verified during a show in East Rutherford, where lights in front of the stage spelled out "Enigma Publius". During a televised concert at Earls Court, London, in October 1994, the word "enigma" was projected in large letters on to the backdrop of the stage. The riddle has never been solved. Gilmour and Mason later said the riddle was created as a marketing ploy by EMI. According to Mason, the prize was to be "a crop of trees planted in a clear-cut area of forest or something to that effect ... a touchy-feely sort of gift that was more of a philanthropic thing than something you could hang on the wall".

Sales
The Division Bell was released in the UK by EMI Records on 28 March 1994, and in the US on 5 April, and went straight to number one in both countries. The Division Bell was certified silver and gold in the UK on 1 April 1994, platinum a month later and 2× platinum on 1 October. In the US, it was certified gold and double platinum on 6 June 1994, and triple platinum on 29 January 1999.

In the United States the album debuted at number one in the Billboard 200 during the week of 23 April 1994 selling more than 460,000 units, at the time it was the 12th largest single-week total since Billboard began using SoundScan data in May 1991 and also became the fifth-largest first-week sales sum back then. The next week it stayed at the top of the chart selling a little less than half its first-week total, it moved 226,000 units during its second week on chart. The next week sales slid by 30% from last week's sum selling 157,000 units, despite this sales decrease the album stayed at number one. The following week, on 14 May 1994 The Division Bell remained at number one on the Billboard 200 and sales declined by 17%. In its fifth week, it fell off to the fourth place on the chart. It was present on the Billboard 200 for 53 weeks. It was certified three times platinum by the RIAA on 29 January 1999 for shipments of three million units.

Tour
Two days after the album's release, the Division Bell Tour began at Joe Robbie Stadium, in suburban Miami. The set list began with 1967's "Astronomy Domine", before moving to tracks from 1987's A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and The Division Bell. Songs from Wish You Were Here and The Wall were featured, as well as the whole Dark Side of the Moon. Backing musicians included Sam Brown, Jon Carin, Claudia Fontaine, Durga McBroom, Dick Parry, Guy Pratt, Tim Renwick, and Gary Wallis.

The tour continued in the US through April, May and mid-June, before moving to Canada, and then returning to the US in July. As the tour reached Europe in late July, Waters declined an invitation to join the band, and later expressed his annoyance that Pink Floyd songs were being performed again in large venues. On the first night of the UK leg of the tour on 12 October, a 1,200-capacity stand collapsed, but with no serious injuries; the performance was rescheduled.

The tour ended at Earls Court on 29 October 1994, and was Pink Floyd's final concert performance until Live 8 in 2005. Estimates placed the total number of tickets sold at over 5.3 million, and gross income at about $100 million. A live album and video, Pulse, was released in June 1995.

Critical reception
The Division Bell received mixed reviews. Tom Sinclair of Entertainment Weekly wrote that "avarice is the only conceivable explanation for this glib, vacuous cipher of an album, which is notable primarily for its stomach-turning merger of progressive-rock pomposity and New Age noodling". Rolling Stone Tom Graves criticised Gilmour's performance, writing that his guitar solos had "settled into rambling, indistinct asides that are as forgettable as they used to be indelible ... Only on 'What Do You Want from Me' does Gilmour sound like he cares". Robert Christgau of The Village Voice dismissed The Division Bell as a "dud."

The album won the Grammy for Best Rock Instrumental Performance on "Marooned". The Division Bell was nominated for the 1995 Brit Award for Best Album by a British Artist, but lost to Blur's Parklife.

In Uncut's 2011 Pink Floyd: The Ultimate Music Guide, Graeme Thomson wrote that The Division Bell  "might just be the dark horse of the Floyd canon. The opening triptych of songs is a hugely impressive return to something very close to the eternal essence of Pink Floyd, and much of the rest retains a quiet power and a meditative quality that betrays a genuine sense of unity." In 2014, Uncut reviewed the album again for its 20th-anniversary reissue, and praised its production, writing that it sounded much "more like a classic Pink Floyd album" than The Final Cut (1983) and that the connection between Wright and Gilmour was "the album's musical heart". Roger Waters, who left Pink Floyd in 1985, dismissed The Division Bell as "just rubbish ... nonsense from beginning to end."

Reissues
The Division Bell was reissued in 2011. It was remastered by Andy Jackson and released as a standalone CD and as part of the Discovery box set. It was reissued again on 30 June 2014, as a "20th anniversary deluxe edition" box set and a 20th anniversary double-LP vinyl reissue. The box set contains the 2011 remaster of the album; a 5.1 surround sound remix by Jackson; 2-LP record on 180g vinyl; a red 7" "Take It Back" single; a clear 7" "High Hopes/Keep Talking" single; a blue, laser-etched 12" "High Hopes" single; book and assorted art cards. The 2014 reissues saw the first release of the full album on vinyl as the 1994 vinyl release saw only edited versions of the songs to keep it to a single LP. The Division Bell was reissued again with the Pink Floyd Records label on 26 August 2016. A limited-edition 25th anniversary double-LP was released on 7 June 2019. The reissue is on blue vinyl and uses the two-LP master created for the 20th anniversary vinyl release.

Original release
All lyrics are written by David Gilmour and Polly Samson, except where noted.

Personnel
Pink Floyd
 * David Gilmour – lead vocals (2, 3, 5, 7-11), acoustic, electric, classical & steel guitars, bass guitar (3, 5, 10, 11), keyboards, backing vocals, talkbox, programming
 * Richard Wright – lead vocals (6), piano, organ and synthesisers, backing vocals (2)
 * Nick Mason – drums, percussion, church bell (11)

Additional musicians
 * Jon Carin – piano, keyboards, programming, arrangements (10)
 * Guy Pratt – bass guitar (2, 4, 6-9)
 * Gary Wallis – percussion (8), programming (9)
 * Tim Renwick – additional guitars (3, 7)
 * Dick Parry – tenor saxophone (6)
 * Bob Ezrin – percussion, keyboards (3, 7)
 * Sam Brown – backing vocals (2, 6, 7, 9)
 * Durga McBroom – backing vocals (2, 6, 7, 9)
 * Carol Kenyon – backing vocals (2, 6, 7, 9)
 * Jackie Sheridan – backing vocals (2, 6, 7, 9)
 * Rebecca Leigh-White – backing vocals (2, 6, 7, 9)
 * Stephen Hawking – vocal samples (9)

Production
 * David Gilmour – production, mixing
 * Bob Ezrin – production
 * Andrew Jackson – engineering
 * Michael Kamen – orchestral arrangements on A Great Day for Freedom and High Hopes
 * Edward Shearmur – orchestrations on High Hopes
 * Steve McLoughlin – orchestra recording
 * Chris Thomas – mixing
 * James Guthrie – mastering engineer
 * Doug Sax – mastering engineer
 * Storm Thorgerson – album art design
 * Tony May – photography
 * Rupert Truman – photography
 * Stephen Piotrowski – photography
 * Ian Wright – graphics
 * Aubrey Powell – album art design (2014 anniversary edition and 2016 Pink Floyd Records re-issues)

title: The Division Bell


text:
Multimedia Home Platform

Multimedia Home Platform (DVB-MHP) is an open middleware system standard designed by the DVB project for interactive digital television. The MHP enables the reception and execution of interactive, Java-based applications on a TV-set. Interactive TV applications can be delivered over the broadcast channel, together with audio and video streams. These applications can be for example information services, games, interactive voting, e-mail, SMS or shopping. MHP applications can use an additional return channel that has to support IP.

Deployment
In May 2010 the largest deployments DVB-MHP are in Italy (DVB-T), Korea (DVB-S), Belgium (DVB-C) and Poland (DVB-S) with trials or small deployments in Germany, Spain, Austria, Colombia, Uruguay and Australia.

MHP service was also offered in Finland by Finnish Broadcasting Corporation (Yleisradio), but the service was shut down at the end of 2007 after technical failure. The shutdown wasn't ever officially announced. Ultimately the reason for the shutdown was that MHP never gained "critical mass". The main reasons for its lack of success in Finland were: 1) 50% of the Finnish households use the terrestrial network, where broadcasting of MHP applications can be really expensive, 2) TV broadcasters never told TV viewers about the MHP services—because the digitalization of the TV networks got extremely negative publicity in Finnish media, the broadcasters didn't want to upset their customers further if they had bought new expensive STBs which weren't capable of playing MHP apps, and 3) there were only a few MHP set-top boxes in the market—because Finland is such a small market, big manufacturers weren't interested in developing new MHP boxes just for Finland. MHP-capable STBs are no longer available in Finland.

The U.S. cable industry has specified its own middleware system referred as OCAP, which is largely based on MHP. Currently, Belgium's largest cable provider Telenet is rolling out their DVB-MHP system, called DigiBox. Norway's upcoming terrestrial digital TV network NTV will also use the DVB-MHP standard. In late 2008 the Info+ channel in Greece (part of the ERT Digital platform) started broadcasting DVB-MHP info, however since standards have not been set as of February 2009 for digital television in Greece, most TV sets and DVB-T receivers sold in the country do not feature DVB-MHP.

Technology
The MHP specifies an extensive application execution environment for digital interactive TV, independent of the underlying, vendor-specific, hardware and software. This execution environment is based on the use of a Java virtual machine and the definition of generic APIs that provide access to the interactive digital TV terminal's typical resources and facilities. The interoperable MHP applications are running on top of these APIs. A so-called Navigator-application, which is part of the terminal software, allows the user the access to all MHP applications and other DVB services (like TV and radio). Sometimes Navigator can be also a Java program itself but that is not a requirement.

The MHP is just a part of a family of specifications, which all base on the Globally Executable MHP (GEM)-Standard, which was defined to allow the worldwide adoption of MHP.

DVB-HTML
MHP applications come in two flavours. The first type are DVB-HTML applications. These are not very popular, partly because the specification for DVB-HTML was only completed with MHP 1.1, and partly because many broadcasters, box manufacturers and content developers find it too complex and difficult to implement. DVB-HTML applications are a set of HTML pages that are broadcast as part of a service. The spec is based around a modularized version of XHTML 1.1, and also includes CSS 2.0, DOM 2.0, and ECMAScript.

DVB-J
The second, and by far the most popular flavour is DVB-J (DVB-Java) applications. These are written in Java using the MHP API set and consist of a set of class files that are broadcast with a service. DVB-Java applications are known as "Xlets". These are a concept similar to applets for Web pages that has been introduced by Sun in the JavaTV specification. Like applets, the xlet interface allows an external source (the application manager in the case of an MHP receiver) to start and stop an application.

Return channel
The MHP set-top boxes may provide a backchannel for applications that wish to communicate with the outside world, for example a voting or shopping application. Typical upstream backchannels are phone line or broadband Internet connection (ADSL, or 56k in Italy, using a modem included in the set-top box). DVB-RCT (Return Channel Terrestrial) is a wireless technology utilizing the DVB infrastructure. It provides a VHF/UHF Wireless Return Channel back to the broadcaster for Interactive Terrestrial TV. It provides a data-rate of several kbit/s per user, for voting, polls, email, teleshopping, etc. If return channel is present it should provide IP with TLS support.

title: Multimedia Home Platform