Talk:The Crucible

Talk

I'm not sure to whom I'm talking, but I hope for some simple guidance. I am new to editing for Wikipedia. My field is theater--acting, directing, live drama. I was looking at the article on Arthur Miller's The Crucible because I have an interest in the actor E. G. Marshall who played in the original cast. His name was not listed in the 1953 company, nor were many of the correct names for the leading roles. I suspect someone pranked the list, but I did not feel free to take it down. I did enter a correct cast list as well, leaving it to readers to decide between the two. Serious readers can check either the source I used (Opening night NY Times review) or the source listed by the original writer or pranker, ibdb.com, and find the inaccuracies for themselves. But I don't imagine many do that.

KFFOWLER (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a re-cast towards the end of the first run (but that didn't save it). I don't have details of the changes so if anyone has, this could be clarified further. I added a further reference, from a printed work and so beyond the reach of www pranksters. Unlike IMDB, IBDB doesn't allow user-generated content and so should be reliable also. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism in synopsis

The synopsis of Acts I, II, and IV appears to be lifted wholesale [1] from this website [2] (now returning 404; see the page cached on Google [3]). As for the synopsis of Act III, it appears to have been blanked [4] and then filled [5] with the corresponding section from SparkNotes [6]. I guess this is a common thing on Wikipedia for articles about books, but it's still rather upsetting. Waterfalls12 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, it's also possible that the teacherweb.com page itself plagiarized from Wikipedia, as it's titled a **Web Quest**, and two of the other sources on that page are lifted from other Internet sources. Waterfalls12 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've recently begun trying to remove the material. At the rate I'm going, it seems like I'll end up blanking the entire article. I have removed material copied from the following sites:

Sparknotes

Shmoop

Teaching Companion

Starnow

I don't believe that all (or any) of these are Wikipedia mirrors. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the material was copied from these websites, rather than the other way around, or any plans to rewrite the material you deleted? This all seems kind of silly, especially considering the critiques made by the very play whose article you're editing. 188.74.64.210 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Shmoop explicitly asserts copyright over its material, both on its own website, and a complaint against a copier found here. Furthermore, the content did not exist on Wikipedia when the entry on english4everyone was submitted, and that was itself copied from Schmoop, making that a definite copyvio. Sparknotes is a reputable site, and also explicitly asserts copyright over its material.

Starnow is more dubious. It asserts copyright, though it isn't clear who submitted the character summaries and whether or not they may have copied them. It is certainly possible, since the material there already existed on Wikipedia when the Starnow entry was submitted, on 10 August 2013. And after taking a close look at Teaching Companion, I also will say I'm suspicious of them. Honestly, they seem like a scam to me. I can re-add the material for the characters if we want, but I would say the acts need to be left out. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017

It's the first time to use Wiki,so i'm not so familiar with it till now.I just want to find some essay about The Crucible for i have to write a long view on it. I want to read some articles so that i can write it easily. Sing for you (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sing for you: Then check the references cited in the article; I would anticipate some of them are scholarly works you can use in your research. Since you aren't requesting a change to our article, I've closed your request. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Works set in one period but commenting on another

Is there a collective noun or literary category which covers works like Miller's The Crucible and Orwell's Nineteen Eightyfour which are set in one historical period but clearly or are generally understood to provide a commentary or challenge to another historical period, especially the writer's contemporary period? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No responses yet - I'm thinking perhaps such works have never been put into a category together? -

BobKilcoyne (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There might not be enough works in this category to prompt it’s naming, however the concept you present is interesting. -

Pranav Reddy 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of WP:RFC regarding including historical figures in navboxes

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of WP:RFC regarding including historical figures in navboxes

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

“decides to instead admit guilt”

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Proctor’s character description says that after confessing he changes his mind and “decides to instead admit guilt”. It’s not clear what this means, as he has already admitted guilt by confessing.

What actually happens is that he tears up his signed confession, effectively recanting in the eyes of the court.

I would suggest restoring the part of my previous edit that clarified this point. Marselan (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Marselan (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Marselan's description was correct and is inline with the article's synopsis of act 4; it should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Synopsis

The script I have of The Crucible only has two acts. What is listed as Act One is actually ACT ONE: Scene One. Listed as Act Two is actually ACT ONE: Scene Two. **Missing ACT TWO: Scene One (Proctor confronts Abigail in the woods). Listed as Act Three is ACT TWO: Scene Two. Listed as Act Four is ACT TWO: Scene Three.

Also the first paragraphs of 'Act One' and 'Act Two' reference narration that does not exist in the actual text. While the information is contextual relevant, it is not part of the play itself; its presence in the synopsis implies that there is a Narrator that addresses the audience. JWheeler (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the edition? It's definitely a play in 4 acts. Act 2, scene 2 (A wood. Night. Proctor, Abigail) had been dropped by the author and almost all productions. The narration for the first act is titled "An Overture" and starts with "At the time of these events Parris was in his middle forties." There are several more pieces of narration, five I believe, in act 1. It seems they are summarized overleaf into the 1st sentence of act 2. No doubt, the synopsis could be improved – the "narration" paragraphs were introduced on 6 August 2017 by a troublesome editor, but, like you, I think they are fundamentally correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

It seems like the neutrality of this article is lacking, especially in the "Historical accuracy" section. I am unable to do the edits myself due to not being a registered user.

Example: "[Stoughton] refused to ever acknowledge that the trials had been anything other than a success, and was infuriated when Governor Phips (whose own wife, somehow, had been named as a possible witch) ended the trials for good and released the prisoners." (added bold)
Clearly biased against Stoughton (to be honest, I am too, but still, we're supposed to put our biases aside when writing).
Possible revision: He claimed that the trials were a success and criticized Governor Phips (whose own wife had been named as a witch) when Phips ended the trials and released the prisoners.

More examples: "[T]he Putnams...were survived by ten of their twelve children, including Ann Jr., who, in 1706, issued perhaps the most heartfelt apology of any accuser."
That last part is highly subjective.

"Miller's cursory and limited scholarship regarding the trials is lamentable, given the squabbling that has long taken place over various interpretations of the numerous details and facts."
Clear bias against Miller that would be more appropriate for a news article, not Wikipedia.

I'm not suggesting a complete revision to remove any possibly biased words, just to correct these very strongly worded parts. 2600:1700:C370:9F10:31C8:411A:5C9D:A78D (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Removed uncited editorializing as pointed out here but retained the first objected-to statement that is cited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Obamacare

On the mobile app, it says The Crucible is a play by Obamacare. That doesn’t seem right. Pranav Reddy 18:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavrreddy (talk • contribs)

The joys of Wikidata. It's fixed now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Abigail Williams

"(In real life, after fleeing Salem, Williams reportedly became a prostitute in Boston)." - This has no source and is inaccurate. As Abigail William's Wikipedia page correctly states, historians do not know what happened to Abigail Williams following the trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B05A:6600:4CC7:DD98:3DFF:D13E (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

Please change "piousness" to "piety" in the forth paragraph of the section on Act 2. 2600:1:9919:426A:0:6C:790D:F001 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

'piety' certainly seems more common than 'piousness', although bot mean the same, no? On the other hand, 'piousness' is closer to the line in the play, "But it's hard to think so pious a woman be secretly a Devil's bitch after seventy year of such good prayer." – which is in fact, contrary to the article, spoken by Proctor, not Hale, so that line in the article needs to be rewritten or omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. I agree that it is fine as is. — MRD2014 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Opera and ballet

This article mentions an opera based on the play. I am sure that I heard on Front Row tonight (August 5 2019) that there is going to be a ballet based on the play. If any one knows anything about this, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a programme from the Royal Ballet premiere in April 2000. I can't update the locked page. Be assured it did happen tho. William Tuckett choreography, Charles Ives music, Ralph Steadman designs. But there was another Scottish Ballet production with choreography by Helen Pickett in 2019 at the Edinburgh Festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.151 (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Adaptations to include "Radio Play"

L.A. THEATRE WORKS produced a radio play of The Crucible as part of their series featuring performances of plays before a live audience. The title was: THE PLAY'S THE THING: THE CRUCIBLE (RADIO). DATE: April 10, 1988. Star studded cast, including Richard Dreyfuss, Carol Kane, Stacy Keach and Rene Auberjonois. Broadcast on NPR.

Source: https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=ed&p=122&item=R:11040 2600:1700:F980:6AC0:21F0:D5B8:D448:67B2 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 London production

The National Theatre in London did production of the play that transferred to the West End. I feel it needs to be recognized on this page. Is there a way we can add the current London cast to the notable cast section? Smitty1999 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)