Talk:Moby-Dick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Quality of section "Writing style"

The quality of this section has been commented upon by ch: "The section on Writing Style has a lot of good material but in a jumbled order and is out of proportion to the article as a whole, more like a set of notes than the careful essay we are capable of." I agree that this section needs revision, so that the language gets removed from the sources. It's probably the best approach to first read how other well-developed articles on novels discuss the writing style to get an idea of how to get it right. Another matter is the size of the section. The complex style of Moby-Dick cannot be discussed in full, so we may have to discuss what to leave out and what to include. The influence of Shakespeare seems (to me) an obvious inclusion (but how much space).MackyBeth (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it, taking into account the comments from various editors, especially MackyBeth's well-taken point about Shakespeare. The sources -- Matthiessen Lee, Berthoff, Bercaw, Battenfeld -- do mention other inspirations in addition to Shakespeare, the Bible, and Homer. It may work out best to mention these three in the section's lead paragraph, then devote a paragraph or two to each of them in the body, rather than singling them out for sub-section heads. This would allow a consolidation of some of the examples, as well. I will look at the section on style in Herman Melville#Writing style, which is also full of good material which needs to be shaped and pruned.ch (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it probably works best by looking at both "style" sections together. The probleem with headings is this: since Shakespeare is such an overwhelming presence in the book's language, I figured that that aspect of the style would deserve a subheading of its own. But if you place anything after that without providing a new subheading, then that new item will fall under "asssimilation of Shakespeare" as well. So I had to assign "Homeric simile" its own subheading, not because I wanted to.MackyBeth (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm stabbing away! I've basically stayed within the existing material, rearranging and consolidating, adding some but not a great deal, and will put it up in a day or two.ch (talk)

Ah! The "trying-out" of the style section. Cheers. MackyBeth (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception: Contemporary

Today I had the opportunity to buy a great many books on Melville, including "The Critical Heritage" and "Moby-Dick as Doubloon", two collections of reviews. Together with the account of the reception in the 1988 NN edition of Moby-Dick, these sources should be enough to bring the section Reception up to par in the near future. For now, I removed the first two sentences of the Reception section. The first sentence was about the acclaim for Typee/Omoo and was removed because we need all our bytes to discuss the reception of Moby-Dick. The second section was an unsourced claim about what the response to MD meant to Melville. We don't know what his reaction was, and not even which of the reviews he actually read. A third item I feel should be removed is the Hawthorne quotation. This is not from a review, but from a letter of Hawthorne's. I haven't removed the quotation yet because it is by Hawthorne and may be of some use somewhere else, but a quotation from a (at the time) private letter is an anomaly because Reception is about the reception in public, right?MackyBeth (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to leave Hawthorne. Presumably his opinion will show up in the sources you've gathered, and I've added info from private letters in literature articles I've written. Do we know whether Hawthorne actually published anything he wrote about Melville's work, or was it all in the form of private correspondence? Victoria (tk) 20:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are even more right than you think. As I just noticed on page 293 of Laurie Robertson-Lorant, Melville: A Biography of 1996, which I just bought today, and which is not evident from how Hawthorne is quoted in "Reception", the quotation is a protest against one review. The sentence just after "...preceding ones." goes: "It hardly seemed to me that the review of it, in the Literary World, did justice to its best points." Duyckinck himself was the reviewer, and Hawthorne's letter to him is a defense of the book. If the review was unsigned, Hawthorne may not have been aware he was complaining to the reviewer himself. So the quotation is worth keeping with some more background information. . Hawthorne did not write in public about the book: he may have felt restricted to defend a book that was dedicated to him.MackyBeth (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Publishing history in the lead

I suggested changes from

There were slight but important differences between the texts of the London edition, which appeared first, and the New York edition. The London publisher cut or changed sensitive passages and Melville made changes as well, including a last-minute change in the title. The work first appeared as The Whale in London in October 1851 and then under its definitive title Moby-Dick in New York in November. The British edition was not reprinted, while the American edition was reprinted three times, the last time in 1871. Only 3,200 copies were sold during the author's life.

to

The work was first published as The Whale in London in October 1851 and then under its definitive title Moby-Dick in New York in November. There were hundreds of slight but important differences between the two editions. The London publisher censored or changed sensitive passages and Melville made revisions as well, including the last-minute change in the title for the New York edition. The whale, however, appears in both editions as "Moby Dick", with no hyphen. [Tanselle (1988) "Editorial Appendix," pp. 810-812] About 3,200 copies were sold during the author's life, earning him a little more than $1,200.

The topic sentence is now the first sentence, followed by mentioning the differences and who made them. Explaining the difference between the un-hyphenated whale and the hyphenated novel needs to come someplace, as the question often arises (Google search: "Moby-Dick" vs "Moby Dick" why hyphen?.

Hope this is acceptable! ch (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

To me, at first glance the hypenation and non-hyphenation of Moby Dick is the kind of detail that looks out of place in the lead of this or any article. The fact that the question often arises in itself carries some weight but is not enough reason for its inclusion in the lead. There are many more fundamental questions about MD that often arise. If, however, it can be shown that other articles have such detailed matter in their leads and that this inclusion is endorsed by their status as either FA or GA, I see no reason to object.MackyBeth (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no reply yet, nor is the sentence on the hyphenation deleted. But my question remains: is this not the type of detail that GA reviewers will suggest be moved to a less prominent place?MackyBeth (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. What's worse is that there's no explanation regarding why the hyphenation varies; all the article does is confirm that it happened. It doesn't actually answer the question posed above. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops - apologies, I've been distracted, and mistakenly thought that I had offered a response to MackyBeth's reasonable inquiry. I did in fact look at fifteen or twenty Good Articles Language and Literature articles, and can report that none of them discuss the hyphenation in the titles of their novels, but that most or all of them include details which a GA reviewer might have suggested be moved but did not do so. I think we're safe. Looking at the WP:GA? criteria, I don't see any that touch on this question. WP:LEAD suggests "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article," and this seems to be just the sort of "trivial basic fact" referred to. Readers have asked about this question, it is found in the search above, and it is the function of Wikipedia to respond to the needs of general reader, not just to insiders such as ourselves.

As to the equally reasonable observation that there's no explanation regarding why the hyphenation exists, I haven't seen one in the works I've consulted and it seems that HM just did it. But if it is arbitrary, with no obvious explanation, it is all the more important not to leave our readers perplexed. We don't know why he sold only 3,200 copies either, so I suppose that an explanation might not be needed in order to point out this useful fact.ch (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ch— I must admit the fact about the 3,200 sold books isn't terribly useful either. I don't know anything about 19th century American book publishing practices; if I didn't know any better, maybe I'd guess that 3,200 books was a knockout best-seller for the time. The much more informative bit is nearer to the top of the lead: "the novel was a commercial failure". That tells me something interesting without requiring me to interpret a number. With regard to WP:LEAD, "trivial basic fact" is actually better defined further down on that page: things like "quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles". To clarify, I do think that acknowledging the hyphenation issue is worthy of the article— it's a question I had pondered myself at one point. But I can't see it as important enough to include in the lead. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this hyphenation think as to want to have it deleted at any cost, but I do not see what is so useful about it if there is no suggested explanation included. To which I might add: saying that scholars have no idea what the reason might be is also a good enough explanation, because it tells readers they need not to look further. And as ch correctly points out, this is an item that every reader stumbles upon. Having said that, it may be wise to think about how many trivia items the lead can bear: the lead also has the sentence that the opening sentence is famous, which I opposed but had to accept. I don't think the lead can have much more of this, because principally it should be a thumbnail summary of the article itself.

The edit history of the sales numbers is as follows. Since Moby-Dick is famous for, among other things, being a commercial failure, I thought it would be a good idea to list in the lead not just the cumulative number of how many copies were actually sold during Melville's lifetime, but to break it down by listing the reprint numbers as well. These figures immediately show that the book was available during almost all of his life, and that the Harper's were to some extent committed to him, because they kept reprinting it for decades, until the sales had become really too low to realistically consider another reprint. But as talk points out, you have to have some background knowledge in nineteenth-century publishing to be able to assess these figures. Besides, ch had already noticed that the figures did not add up, so that there was not much of a choice to delete all figures and just mention the total lifetime sales. And then one might legitimately ask, what use is stil left to mention the figure in the lead? Perhaps then, it is more useful to mention how many times the book was reprinted instead of at how many copies. In any case, maybe we editors must first be clear on what kind of publishing information is needed in the lead. To me, the phrase ""commercial failure" alone seems a bit too general, for you could think that it was never reprinted after the first edition.MackyBeth (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

On the word "Novel" once more

In the past there has been discussion about the question whether MD can be called a novel. I don't recall the exact course of the Talk anymore, but the result is that it is called a novel in the opening sentence of the page. Scholars are careful not to use this word: even Buell in his book called "Great American Novel" does not refer to MD as a novel. The Wikipedia The Scarlet Letter page calls Hawthorne's most important work a "romantic prose fiction". Perhaps it is a good idea to think of another term than novel to use for MD as well. Perhaps something like "prose/sea/whaling narrative/fiction/" may be more apt. Cheers MackyBeth (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources that don't call it a novel call it? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no one particular word. It's just obvious they avoid the word novel.MackyBeth (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of accuracy in Wikipedia articles yet I'm not certain this is a clear cut case. If there isn't another term that is consistently used, then we shouldn't invent one ourselves. And while "novel" may not be the most precise term, I don't think it is patently incorrect either. MD is called a novel rather consistently in common usage (c.f. New York Times, The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Salon). Our article on novel even uses MD as an example of a romance that is also frequently referred to as a novel. So I think in the absence of a more accurate term that is also consistently used in the scholarly community, we can still safely use "novel". Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once more to MackyBeth for keeping us on our toes! Buell Great American Novel, the chapter on MD is titled “From Oblivion to Great American Novel,” and I see at least eight places where Buell himself calls it a novel: pp. 359, 361, 363, 364, 369, 374, 383, 384. Herschel Parker, Herman Melville Vol II novel.ch (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

PS The previous discussion on "novel" is archived here ch (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

PPS Also see the December 2013 discussion on the Typee Talk Page.ch (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all, but especially to ch for his helpful supply of instances where the book is called a novel by leading scholars. Perhaps it is a better idea to let the term stand and attach an explanatory note to it detailing that the word was not common in Melville's day and Melville himself did not refer to his books as novels. In any case it seems not right, at least to me, to have the term in the opening sentence as if nothing is the matter with it.MackyBeth (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, the novel/ romance/ adventure question is worth pondering, though hard to say exactly where to put in the article. I do not think that a "note" will be a good way for most readers. If "novel" is good enough for Buell and Parker to use in passing reference, it's good enough for us. BTW, Inspired by MackyBeth I made a slight addition to The Scarlet Letter (here), which Hawthorne explicitly called a "romance" as a subtitle and which he famously discussed at some length in the Customs House Introduction. I was surprised to find that Wikipedia does not have an article on the Romance as a literary form -- see the Disambiguation page Romance.ch (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Silly as it sounds, reading from a printed version I forgot momentarily that this is Wikipedia, and that the word "novel" is of course wikilinked to the article "novel" which explains things. So it's already settled. Thanks for your thoughts, though.MackyBeth (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking "blank verse" within a quotation

This series of edits ([1], [2], [3], [4]) is a dispute about wikilinking the term blank verse inside a quote. The relevant guideline says this:

As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

The purpose of this guideline, which doesn't actually forbid wikilinking within a quote, is to avoid adding additional / undesired content to a quote, like quoting Robert Frost as saying "good fences make good neighbors". But in this case, I think we can apply sensible editorial judgement. The average reader not versed in poetry and literature is not likely to know what blank verse is. Wikilinking this single instance doesn't clutter things and most importantly, doesn't change the meaning of the quote. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"As much as possible" - the maximum possible is, of course, never to do it at all; however, on further examination, I can see some merit in including blank verse. It is an unusual enough term for the common reader, and having the meaning readily available could be of benefit. Scr★pIron^IV 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I thought I read somewhere that such links should never be introduced, but the "As much as possible" phrase obviously leaves room to apply sensible judgment. I hope ch will respond to this, and usually his judgment is sensible enough to go by.MackyBeth (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Since I haven't heard an objection, I've restored the wikilink. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Why the rush, could you not wait for more than just two days? I suggested we waited for ch's input, because he is usually sensible with guidelines.MackyBeth (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that ch is awesome yet we don't need to wait for one specific user's explicit approval for an edit like this. There are 250+ people watching this page; anybody could have objected after I made my explanation and nobody did, even a week later. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

However many people watch this is not relevant. Relevant is who participate, and since your edit disrupts a quotation it is controversial enough to wait for responses more than just two days.MackyBeth (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been enough responses. There is no disruption, and it is not controversial. Scr★pIron^IV 21:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

These are only claims without any reasoning to back it up.MackyBeth (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been two weeks since the discussion has started, and only one comment questioning the change. The individual you have been waiting for to comment has been actively editing, and has not chosen to comment. If controversy were generated by the edit, we would see it. We don't. Those who have made, and confirmed, this change are as "sensible" as anyone else; you have pinged your preferred editor twice, and they have not chosen to comment. Scr★pIron^IV 19:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We lost the source for the Call me... claim in the lede

An edit made on 12 February at 21:34 removed, among other things, the source for the statement in the lede about the famed status of the opening sentence of the book. Hopefully somebody behind a PC will be kind enough to restore this, and perhaps the quotation that I added today from James Wood, who is an important current critic, so his opinion is worth retaining. Thanks,MackyBeth

Yes, it was quite a sweeping removal and we lost a few sources. The edit summary was "Remove unsourced, speculative, non-notable, and hagiographic entries". If you could let me know which source was use for the "Call me Ishmael" claim I'll be happy to restore it for that statement. Unless I'm missing any, we lost "Beauty and the Book", "Herman Melville, Moby-Dick", and "The All of the If". As for the other content and the James Wood review, I'm not personally opposed to it, but I wouldn't feel comfortable restoring it given my lack of knowledge on the subject. I will say that the James Wood sentence was a little flighty though and would recommend it be reworded if you restore it. Just the "it seemed almost that in Moby-Dick every word is touched once" comment. It's well-written but not entirely encyclopedic unless it's part of the quote. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If you look at the removed paragraphs, it is the paragraph beginning "In 2014" and it is the last sentence. Can't miss it because the sentence is quoted with a page number to Buell. MackyBeth

Restored the source. When you get a chance, you may wish to review the other changes for any other potential restores. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No I decided to give up on this page, having neither the time nor the desire to correct other editors ' mistakes while I could be adding useful information to other entries. Thanks for restoring, may spare the article being tagged. MackyBeth

Eh, it happens. Enjoy the weekend and see how you feel come Monday. Three steps forward, two steps back, slowly the pages get fixed. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Publication history

Regarding this It looks like there is currently a major clean up going on with the article. First, let me say that it was pure coincidence that I came across this sentence only an hour or so after you modified it. I happen to be reading the book and the sentence immediately confused me, so this was not an attempt to disrupt the clean up. I understand your desire to include that the story was originally published under the "whale" in the opening paragraph, however without that sentence the publication paragraph is very confusing and disjointed. Perhaps if we add to the lede sentence something like (originally published as 'The Whale' in 1851)? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the first sentence already includes that, so repeating it may be wholly unnecessary. Still, the formatting of the sentence is strange and we could clean it up. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The format of the opening paragraph is a special case, and on second thought your reversal seems correct to me. However, I feel that the dedication to Hawthorne deserves mention in the first paragraph. Not that a dedication is always important enough, but since the dedicatee is a major writer himself I'd say in this instance it's worth the opening paragraph including the quotation. MackyBeth

Gotcha. I do like the formatting of the current sentence "Dedicated to Nathaniel Hawthorne, "in token of my admiration for his genius", the work was first published..." but it's clunky to move the entire paragraph up into the lede and the paragraph has good information in it. We could move the third paragraph up above the second. The dedication wouldn't quite be in the lede paragraph, but it'd still be prominent. The publication paragraph could also be said to chronologically and logically precede the themes paragraph as well, sort of. Otherwise, we could perhaps break off a new sentence "The novel was dedicated to Nathaniel Hawthorne, "in token of my admiration for his genius"" and try to squeeze it in or before "The novel was a commercial failure" although that sentence is kind of a downer. Or we could potentially put this new sentence before "During the 20th century". It wouldn't be as pretty as the current sentence, but it would feature the dedication along with statements by other major writers. Just some thoughts. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, it was because I liked the format of that sentence myself that I didn't separate the dedication information from it. But indeed the sentence about the commercial failure is a downer. Clearly the lede has not yet reached its definitive shape, nor has the rest of the article. Say, how far are you into the book and what edition are you reading? MackyBeth

Good question, I'm not entirely sure what edition. I'm listening to the libervox audiobook and I just got to the point where Ahab announces that he's going after the whale. Enjoying it despite the rather long chapters dedicated to the cetology :P For now, we can table the changes to the lede unless you've got any other thoughts. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, an audiobook. In that case, you should do your self the pleasure of looking at an online text as well, just to see what the style of the prose actually looks like. The cetological chapters are quite fun if you give them the attention they deserve. Ishmael's amazement, sense of wonder, and enthusiasm ensure that these chapters are much more alive than people assume. Which reminds me that Howard P. Vincent ' study of them, published as The Trying-Out of Moby-Dick, really ought to be worked into this article as well. Well, enjoy the Pequod's final voyage! MackyBeth

Final voyage? Spoilers! I thought they would all live happily ever after, haha. 17:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoundr3l (talk • contribs)

Can someone with some time on their hands please gives this article a scrub down?

I just dropped by this article and I couldnt force myself to even read through the Plot, leave alone the rest of the page. It's just god-awful and looks worse than a book report written by an inarticulate 6th grade American school-goer (and it's not even worth a C- grade. Please clean up this mess, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.105.207 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually the plot summary is based on a professionally written summary of Moby-Dick, published in Gale 1972 listed in References. I am sorry to read you did not find it useful. To get a grip on the matter you may find the section on Structure helpful. MackyBeth

Starting to check the plot summary, I have to say that the many edits by a lot of different users have had the cumulative effect of a marked deterioration from the elaborate summary I added on August 12, 2014. It is time to check the current text against that version, I realize. MackyBeth

Points on the lede

• WP:FLOWERY lists "outstanding" as one of the "words to watch," suggesting that "facts and attribution" be used instead.
• "Is considered..." does not attribute.
• The lede does not need to open the question of how many narrators there are.
• It strikes me as strange phrasing to say "a sailor who calls himself Ishmael" and besides, the paragraph ends with a repeat of the word "call" in "Call me Ishmael."
• It's preferable to keep links in the lede to a minimum, and few readers would realize that "white" links to "albinism" or need a link to "whale." It is also against advice to have links in (three!) consecutive words.
• Likewise, "one of the" should not repeat in consecutive sentences.

The simplest way to get around these problems would be to say "Ishmael tells the story of..." After all, it is clear that if "Ishmael tells the story..." that he is the narrator (or "a" narrator, either one) and "tell" is the word he uses in the Epilogue! ch (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Something more: since MD was written during 1851 and1850 I feel that it cannot be called "a 1851 novel" but that the year should be accompanied by a qualification that it was the publishing year. I also removed the phrase "mid-nineteeth" as the American Renaissance period, which was correct of course, but to have two time mentions in the opening sentence is unnecessary. The specific year of appearance will do, but if editors should prefer to include the period of writing as well, then perhaps the opening sentence of The House of the Seven Gables may be a good example of how that might be shaped. Probably not necessary, because the beginning of the second paragraph of the lede mentions the period of writing. MackyBeth (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad the word "outstanding" has now been removed. It is too much of a "peacock tem" and the fact is, really, that the American Renaissance period as a whole is outstanding, in so far that a number of oustanding works were written almost simultaneously (and in the case of MD and House of Seven Gables, not almost simultaneously but simultaneously, period). Singling out MD as outstanding may therefore give the impression that editors of the MD page are trying to make it look like Melville was superior to Hawthorne or Poe. I have never noticed such attitude of perceived competition in the regular editors here, but still the impression that this page tries to place MD above the work of other writers could unintentionally be given. I know that such attitudes do exist in other pages somehow related to each other. Besides, the word outstanding in itself is not very useful if it is not said in what way the work is outstanding, so it's good the word is now gone, and my suggestion is that if any estimation is needed in the lede, it should be in the shape of an attributed quotation. MackyBeth (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Ishmael the narrator

Today an edit was made saying that Ishmael is not the only narrator in the book. I reverted this, but it made me realize that the book's narration is not discussed in this article at all, because that was transferred to the Ishmael (Moby-Dick) page. It seems not right that nothing is said about the narrator in the main article, so maybe a summary of the discussion at Ishmael should be included here, what do editors think? MackyBeth

Not sure that 168.122.65.146's point is wrong or that there is scholarly consensus that Ishmael is the only narrator. Bezanson discusses "two Ishmaels," one who is speaking at the outset of the novel and and another who is witnessing events as they occur. In addition, still other chapters are told from an omniscient point of view, perhaps including "Cetology," or with no "narrator," such as "The Quarter Deck." I agree with MackyBeth that a BRIEF (!) mention of the narratorship of the whalingship is appropriate.ch (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bezanson discusses two Ishmaels but not two narrators. The first is the sailor aboard the ship, and the second is the narrator who tells his story some years later. That Ishmael can adopt the point of view of his former self or of his current self. He also repeatedly refers to himself as the writer of the chapters. Bezanson stresses that everything in the book, including the soliloquies and the chapters that look like a play for a stage without a narrator, must be regarded as Ishmael's creation. This essay has been reprinted many times, and is the only item that appears in both Norton Critical Editions of the book. The 2006 Longman edition of Bryant and Springer agrees with this as well. I have not seen this view of Ishmael as narrator challenged and I am confident that this article should call Ishmael the narrator of Moby-Dick. But I will of course change this standpoint if it is possible to prove it wrong by citing sources.MackyBeth (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Under the section "Structure," I supplied a one-paragraph discussion of the book's narrator, under the heading "Point of view." An alternative heading that popped up in my head was "Narrative technique," I don't know which is better, but I believe that the latter choice would imply a discussion of all the soliloquis, uses of stage play notation, etcetera. The paragraph is based upon Bezanson's original essay, and I included a quotation by John Bryant from almost half a century later, just to show that Bezanson's identification of the narrator still stands.MackyBeth (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify this issue somewhat more, an example of a book that really has more than one narrator is Faulkner ' As I Lay Dying, where each chapter is named for its narrator. Chapters called Darl are narrated by Darl, who is a narrator at the same narrative level as the other narrators. Each narrator has the ability to quote characters. In MD only Ishmael has such power, the other characters are merely speakers. When Ahab is the sole speaker of a chapter, the chapter is typically in soliloquy style. Ahab, and others, can only speak for themselves without ability to quote other characters and this limitation makes it impossible to consider anybody else than Ishmael the narrator of the book, and so far I haven't come across any MD scholarship arguing otherwise. MackyBeth (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's MD scholarship that "argues otherwise" and might be helpful. Buell in Dream of the Great American Novel argues that MD starts as a conventional “hero-observer” tale, with Ishmael telling the tale from his own point of view, then undermines this convention.

Ahab and Ishmael “converge” and

at times their voices blur to the point that Melvillians argue over who speaks... [T]he telltale mark of Ishamel’s inextricability from Ahab is his loss of control of the narrative voice.... first through the interposition, starting at the point when Ahab is first introduced, of a number of chapters orchestrated as drama, without a narrator figure at all; and later, during the last fifth of the main narrative... (chapters 112-135), when Ishmael as a named character disappears entirely until he pops back up in the epilogue.... Most readers tend to grasp for some theory that preserves Ishmael’s status as as the book’s presiding consciousness, in the spirit opf Walter Bezanson’s much reprinted centennial lecture essay..., which ... [insists] that despite whatever appearances to the contrary ‘the Ishmael voice is there every moment ...’.” [pp 368-369]

Buell asks why MD (sic -- not HM) should have invented such a “brainy, engaging dramatized narrator figure in the first place only to suppress him.” (Note the phrase “narrator figure,” not “narrator”, implying that Buell sees HM as the narrator, but who knows?) [369] Buell goes on to suggest the possibility that the answer is not in the logic of MD but in HM’s “overall career trajectory” in which he became “restive with pseudo-autobiographicalism” and switched from first person in the earlier works to third person in those that follow, [370] Don't you love that term “pseudo-autobiographicalism”?

Buell argues that this indeterminacy is built into the overall set of indeterminacies around which HM, partly consciously, partly by his work situation, constructed the book – here, that is, the indeterminacy between Ishmael and Ahab which is reflected in the indeterminacy of who is narrating large sections of the book.

This is not to offer an answer to the question of who is the "narrator" or the "protagonist", which is not our job as editors to decide, only to say that there is in fact discussion & debate.

In practical terms, I suggest that we avoid giving the problem undue weight by not mentioning a narrator except where necessary.ch (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, another quibble: The first sentence of Plot says "The narrator, who calls himself Ishmael...." He says "call me Ishmael," but does he ever call himself Ishmael?ch (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

To begin with the last question: he calls himself Ishmael continuously throughout the book, and according to Tom Quirk in his notes to the Penguin edition it only happens once that someone else calls him Ishmael. I don't see how the use of the term "narrator figure" implies that HM is the narrator. It looks like Buell discusses the difference between who tells the story and whose point of view is presented. For instance, in Benito Cereno Delano is not the narrator but his point of view is presented throughout, with the result that many critics call him the narrator by a slip of the pen. In MD Ahab's monomania increasingly gets a hold of the crew, and Ishmael may lose his own point of view in the excitement of the final chapters, with the result that Ahab seizes "control of his narrative voice", but even then, Ishmael remains the narrator. This is where Buell disagrees with Bezanson: Bezanson proposes that Ishmael is the center of consciousness throughout, Buell feels that he does not escape Ahab's spell and reminds us that, as a character, Ishmael disappears sometime. At some points Ishmael may be representing Ahab's point of view. Even then, Ishmael is doing the representing. Bezanson, I might add, could counter Buell by stating that, if Ishmael's consciousness is under Ahab's spell, then he is still representing his own consciousness by letting it show. This is of course going further than a Wikipedia editor should, but if you reread Buell's argument keeping this narrator/ point of view issue in mind (which is also called focalization), you may interpret it differently. Cheers and thanks for this interesting discussion! MackyBeth (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the plot summary?

MackyBeth asks "what happened to the plot summary in the last year or so?" Just for reference, the changes from January 1, 2015 to earlier this month can be seen in this comparison. Cheers! ch (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! This is very convenient. Cheers MackyBeth

You're very welcome! I now realize, looking at the section above, that it would be more useful to have "this comparison with August 2015."

Bear in mind that MOS:PLOT does not call for an "elaborate" plot summary, so we do not need to restore one. Also, quotations should not be used (or only sparingly) if they simply add color or flavor. ::The MOS here also says:

Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes").

A relevant application here is that it would be OK to avoid the question of who the narrator is. The first sentence of "Plot" could be something like "The novel opens with Ishmael traveling from Manhatten to NB to sign on as a sailor on a whaling ship." For Cetology", instead of saying "Ishmael discusses...," we could say "The Chapter 'Cetology' discusses the natural history of the whale. The crew members are...."ch (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I have no intention of restoring the plot summary of 2014. You have been making sensible tightening edits that were needed. A host of other users have also been tinkering with it, however, so I just plan to check if no errors were introduced, nothing more. The wording you proposed to avoid the impression that Ishmael's role as narrator is never interrupted is worth taking up by introducing terms as Ahab's soliloquy etc MackyBeth (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The book is big, and I think the reader will expect a lengthy plot summary. If it is useful to break the plot summary down to sections, I propose we use the 1851 British three-decker as a point of reference, so that three different sections are created: Volume 1 (Ch.....), Volume 2 etc. In that way we have a historically justified division rather than something by the page editors's own arbitrary judgment. MackyBeth (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Good to be thinking about this creatively, but first, I'm not clear why the reader needs a longer plot summary -- to be sure, we agree that MD needs and deserves more than The Old Man and the Sea! But we also don't want a Reader's Digest version that includes everything that happens. The advice on plot summaries WP:PLOTSUM is sensible, though not strict policy:

The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens and to fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it. The summary must be concise because Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about more than just the plot. Plot summaries that are too long and too detailed can be hard to read and are as unhelpful as those that are too short. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion.

This guideline also warns against "spoilers," though I think it's OK to reveal that Ishmael survived!

We should thank MackyBeth once again for thinking "outside the box," but I'm also not clear why a reader would find it helpful to have the plot summary organized by the volumes of the British edition, which they are not likely to have at hand. The present organization might be improved by more attention to the topic sentences of each paragraph, so that readers could run theirs eyes down the page and see how the plot runs along.

Once again, I have no intention of making the plot summary any longer than it already is. I am just suggesting that if anyone should find that the current one should be broken down into sections, then this is an objective way to do it. I studied the guidelines for plot summaries carefully when I wrote the plot summary, which is precisely why the plot summary contains some quotations. The main things are, first MD is twice as long as most other novels, and two it does not have a plot at all, just a sequence of events. That makes it hard to tell which events are more important than others. So I used Robert Gale's book as a guide for the plot summary, to make sure nothing important is left out. As the guidelines say, the plot summary should enable readers to follow the rest of the article, and amends may be made accordingly. Some elements still not touched upon when the article is ready for GA review may eventually be removed from the summary, while others now missing can be added if touched upon in other sections. MackyBeth (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @MackyBeth: Could you please explain why 'plot' section does not need to be referenced? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem, Mhhossein. In MOS:PLOT, the next-to-last paragraph begins: The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. Plot summaries are the only section in articles on novels/plays/films that need not have sources, and should provide a basic summary with zero interpretative/analytic remarks, not even something incontestible as "Ishmael, who takes his name from the Old Testament". MackyBeth (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot MackyBeth, I didn't know that. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahab's previous voyage

In the opening paragraph, it states, "...revenge on Moby Dick, the white whale which on the previous whaling voyage destroyed his ship and severed his leg at the knee."

That's incorrect. Ahab's boat was destroyed (a common-enough occurrence that it is probably not worth mentioning in the article), but not his ship. Was his ship at that time not this self-same Pequod? Did not Bildad and Peleg serve under Old Thunder himself on that very ship? Hast thou clapped eyes on the book, shipmate?

http://www.powermobydick.com/Moby018.html, Bildad says to Peleg, "...Tell me, when this same Pequod here had her three masts overboard in that typhoon on Japan, that same voyage when thou went mate with Captain Ahab, did'st thou not think of Death and the Judgment then?"

Eshafto (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Keen eye, everybody else overlooked this error. Of course the ship could not have been destroyed at the previous voyage, because in that case it would not have been the previous but the last voyage.MackyBeth (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy anniversary

Today Moby-Dick is 165 years old. MackyBeth (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Aye, and when he blows, let his blast blow out the candles, the three spemacetti candles and a few more!ch (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There she blows!-there she blows--A hump like a snow-hill! MackyBeth (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

American Reception question

I don't understand this sentence under Reception - American:

The earliest American review, in the Boston Post for November 20, quoted the London Athenaeum's scornful review, not realizing that the criticism did not pertain to Moby-Dick.

This doesn't seem to tie with the words quoted from the Athenaeum's review under Reception - British. Why does the Athenaeum's review "not pertain to Moby-Dick"?--ML5 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello ML5, the review of The Whale (the British title), criticized the book for having a narrator who did not survive to tell the story, because his survival is only told in the Epilogue, omitted in that edition. Since the Epilogue is present in Moby-Dick (the American title), this criticism of The Whale does not pertain to Moby-Dick. Cheers MackyBeth (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, got it now. Would it not be clearer to say:

The earliest American review, in the Boston Post for November 20, quoted the London Athenaeum's scornful review of The Whale, not realizing that the criticism did not pertain to Moby-Dick.

--ML5 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think that's clearer, then go ahead.MackyBeth (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Dylan discusses Moby-Dick in his Nobel Lecture on Literature

Always wanted to hear what the names of the major characters sound like in Bob Dylan's voice? Now you can. No less than six minutes Dylan devotes to the book in his Nobel Lecture, including citing the famous lines: strike the sun if it insulted me, true places are never down in any map, and more. I expect this speech will be notable enough to warrant a mention in the Legace section of the article, which I supplied.MackyBeth (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dylan's Nobel acceptance speech was plagiarized from SparkNotes, which is an online analogue of Cliff Notes. That makes it pathetic, not notable. Even it weren't plagiarized, though, it would still not warrant a mention in the Legacy section (or any other part) of the article because the classic status of Moby Dick had already been established before Dylan was born. Indeed, if Moby Dick hadn't already been extremely well-established as a classic, Dylan obviously would not have cited it. TheScotch (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should treat all winners of the Nobel Prize for literature the same, whether the laureate is a controversial winner or not. Should Philip Roth have received the Nobel, and in his subsequent lecture have acknowledged the influence of MD on his works, mentioning that fact in this article would not be controversial. So neither should Dylan's acknowledgment be removed.

To respond to the 3 points in your edit summary of the removal edit: 1) the only thing that's relevant for this article is that Dylan cites the book as an influence, regardless of his use or plagiarism of SparkNotes in his lecture. But the quotation from that lecture appearing in this article are definitely his own words. You may find that his plagiarism of SparkNotes makes the lecture "pathetic, not notable", but contrary to your statement your personal opinion does not bear any relevance to the notability of Dylan's lecture. Had he read the telephone book, his lecture would still be notable because of the combination of being the Nobel lecture, and being by Dylan; 2) It is also not relevant that the book has long been an established classic before Dylan was born. The section "Legacy" in this and any other article on a classic of literature, or whatever art form, will always consist of a majority of references dating from the period the work was already established, that's why it's called Legacy; 3) Dylan has long been a cultural icon, especially for his lyrics. Therefore, when someone of his stature acknowledges the influence of MD on his writing it is notable enough to mention that here, and does not qualify as fancruft. And that acknowledgment is the only reason his lecture is quoted here, it's not what he has to say about MD itself, or he would have been quoted in Themes or Structure or any other section than Legacy. The three reasons you cite for removing this are logically unsustainable, and therefore make it sound like someone looking for an excuse to remove content he somehow doesn't like but has no real reasons to remove. MackyBeth (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moby-Dick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527182311/http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/abrams_mh.pdf to http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/abrams_mh.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Log: automatically patrolled and reviewed

Looking at the log for this article, to my surprise I see that my edits autmatically mark this page as patrolled and reviewed. Is there a way to switch this off? It seems weird that an editor would serve as the reviewer of his own contributions.MackyBeth (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Carl Gustav Jung

Should this article include reference to the fact that Carl Gustav Jung said he considered "Moby Dick" the greatest American novel? Vorbee (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Melville's unscientific obstinacy

In a lengthy chapter, Melville embarrasses himself by obstinately arguing that whales are fish in spite of all of the evidence, some of which he himself adumbrates, that whales are mammals. Perhaps the author of this prodigious article could include a discussion of Melville's rejection of contemporaneous cetacean biology. Autodidact1 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Duped quote

"who appears to have been drowned with the rest, communicated his notes for publication to Mr. Bentley is not explained"

is mentioned twice closely together, but with separate footnotes? Rather strange. Shenme (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Animation

There have been a few cartoons based on Moby Dick, though loosely. Most are from the 1960's. Jlodman (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A little exaggeration

Not very encyclopedic to say that “Its opening sentence, "Call me Ishmael", is among world literature's most famous.” An encyclopedia should either say that so and so consider it one of the most famous, not that it is, as it is disputable - I teach at the faculty of Letters of Sorbonne University in Paris and had never heard of it, and I believe it’d be the same for my Chinese, Bolivian, Mozambican or Serbian colleagues. Maybe “American literature” instead of “world literature”? 2A01:CB09:E02D:D66:75DB:6D11:98B5:8CB3 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are teaching at the Sorbonne, you sure have access to the book this statement is sourced to. "“Call me Ishmael,” one of world fiction’s most famous opening sentences, implies all of the following and more: “This might be an alias”; “Don’t expect me to tell all”; and “I cast myself as a rootless wanderer.” (Buell 2014 p 362)

Which is actually on p 362 (and not 367) - which raises the more interesting question if the references are correct in the article. I think the assessment that it is "one of the world fiction’s most famous" opening sentences iscorrect and reasonably qualified. Mvbaron (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly its being amongst the most famous doesn't imply that a majority of any class of people will have heard of it. That's a basic logic failure. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I corrected the page number.ch (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Suggest removing the ungrammatical (first)"are" in the following sentence:

These similes, with their astonishing "imaginative abundance," are not only create dramatic movement, Matthiessen observes: "They are no less notable for breadth; and the more sustained among them, for an heroic dignity."[47] 2001:5B0:2711:3580:69A6:CEEA:5D48:2BC2 (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks --Mvbaron (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a Moby Dick in popular culture article or section?

To avoid duplicating, I asked this question over here, would be interested to hear editors' thoughts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adaptations_of_Moby-Dick#Should_there_be_a_Moby_Dick_in_popular_culture_article%3F BrightVamp (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of chapters in Moby-Dick - deletion proposal

The page List of chapters in Moby-Dick, which includes a column that shows which chapters are despriptive and which are narrative, has been tagged with a deletion proposal (will be deleted on 12 December if nothing else happens). If you think it should not be deleted, or if you think it could be improved or expanded with e.g. an additional column about ship encountered, please feel free to edit the page or object to the deletion. - Wiki-uk (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

The sentence, “A first mate, actually called Edward C. Starbuck was discharged at Tahiti under mysterious circumstances.” is incorrect. The given source states this occurred on the 1831 voyage of the Houqua, which did not involve Melville— Edward C. Starbuck was not a member of the Acushnet’s crew. 2601:842:C100:A6E0:A41E:D45:7A38:6E0 (talk) 11:15, 21 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. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

OR in Section Whaling sources

The final paragraph in the section Whaling sources (beginning with : "In addition to...") only cites primary sources in the notes 88-90. To my understanding, this would make that paragraph count as "original research." For that reason, and because this paragraph is about literary sources rather than whaling sources, I propose we delete this. MackyBeth (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe better to look for sources, or a least label "unsourced", rather than delete? Also maybe tighten the paragraph while you're at it? ch (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually the whole section could do with some tightening. It's not yet in the "summary style" that is required if we're going to take this article to the next level. I knew that I would find my own contribution too expansive upon rereading, but it is actually more disappointing than I had anticipated. MackyBeth (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit correction

"the white whale that, on the ship's previous voyage, bit off Ahab's leg at the knee"

If you know grammar, you know that a nonrestrictive clause requires commas to offset it. Nonrestrictive clauses offer extra information about something you have mentioned in a sentence, but that information isn’t essential for identifying the thing you’re talking about. In the sentence above, "on the ship's previous voyage" is not necessary to the sentence. Only one whale bit off Ahab's leg, and it only happened once. There is no other whale to confuse it with. You're right, though, that the sentence is incorrect. It should say, "the white whale WHICH (or who), on the ship's previous voyage, bit off Ahab's leg at the knee". We know this also because "on the ship's previous voyage" can be moved to the end of the sentence and it means the same thing and still makes sense. Either way, it still needs to be separated by commas, because it is a nonrestrictive clause. Eeclwa (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification:

If you moved the clause to the end, no commas would be needed, and you could use "that". Eeclwa (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sutile detail.

`Its opening sentence, "Call me Ishmael", is among world literature's most famous.´ Well, the reality is...isn't so famous in non english speaking places. (or directly unknown, neither in their translations) It's kinda a bit english-centric. Yeah, ik this is english wikipedia. Perhaps i also could say "En un lugar de la Mancha" is one of the most famous opening sentences too but...u know what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.54.251.119 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed something to watch out for. I live in a non-English speaking country (The Netherlands), and the opening sentence is quite famous here. The brevity of the sentence makes it easy to remember, in the original or in translations, so I think we need not delete this statement unless more editors object.MackyBeth (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree (once again!) with MackyBeth. As we discussed once before on this Talk Page, the article does not claim that the sentence is "the" most famous, only "one of the...." ch (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CWH! It's fun to 'meet' you after such a hiatus. And a belated thanks for restoring the Gale book to the Works Cited list. MackyBeth (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it famous, it directly contradicts the opening line of the lead. It doesn't say that the narrator's name is Ishmael, and in fact, strongly implies that it isn't. JDZeff (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How does it "strongly" suggest his name isn't Ishmael? Eeclwa (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Modifying footnotes to improve correspondence to general references

I've been benefiting greatly from the citations in this beautiful article, but have encountered some friction in how footnotes are mapped to the documents in the general reference section. I'd like to know what y'all would think of employing a system like shortened footnotes. One virtue, aside from linking footnotes more directly to full references/corresponding resources, is that shortened footnotes seem to afford a lot of flexibility through explanatory notes for e.g. clarification regarding provenance of italics.

I also apologize if this has already been deliberated on before, as I didn't find the topic when I searched the archives. – Spida-tarbell (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

It is not Ahab who is possessed by all the world's angels, it is the whale; also the line is "Moby Dick seemed combinedly possessed by all the angels that fell from heaven"

Change

"Possessed by all the fallen angels", Ahab plants his harpoon in the whale's flank.

to

The whale, "possessed by all the angels that fell from heaven," crests above the water, and Ahab plants his harpoon in its flank. Fewredthings (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Possible NPOV issues if you're interpreting it differently. Callmemirela 🍁 03:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)