Talk:The Crucible/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

It should be 'John Proctor' not 'James Proctor'. Proctor did not play football :P (click link)

broken link

the link to "why i wrote the crucible" is broken, which is a darn shame. A quick search of the website and i was unable to find it. A Toyota's A Toyota 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the same error, after being assigned the essay to analyze in my English class and given the link http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/miller-crucible.html, which oddly enough was password-protected (I don't go to UPenn). Can't find the document anywhere else on the web. --75.84.205.142 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which of these would do the best?

• http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mcunningham/why_i_wrote.htm
• http://dialogic.blogspot.com/2005/09/arthur-miller-why-i-wrote-crucible.html
• http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote %20The%20Crucible.htm
• http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote%20the%20Crucible.pdf
• http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/miller.html
• http://abeaver.wordpress.com/2006/08/28/why-i-wrote-the-crucible-by-arthur-miller/

Ogram 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

main photo

This page needs a picture in the infobox. any suggestions? I'll try Commons. VanTucky 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is not well-written. The sentences do not flow together well, the prose is wordy, there are grammar mistakes, etc. The lead needs to be significantly rewritten as it is not a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD) - it contains far too many details. The plot summary is not really a summary - it is also too detailed and poorly written. It also does not explain certain facts mentioned, as if the reader already knows them. It is an odd combination of too much information and yet not enough. I would delete both lists of characters. Any crucial character information should be revealed in the "Plot summary" section. The film adaptation section is just a list - that is poor writing - turn it into prose.

2. Factually accurate?: No article with "citation needed" tags should be nominated for GA. The entire "Historical context" section (which is basically all that the article consists of) is unsourced.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is missing four sections at least that I can think of immediately: "Themes", "Style", "Theatrical productions" and "Reception". You need to find out what literary scholars have said about this play (for the "Themes" and "Style" sections), how it was produced as a stage drama (for the "Theatrical productions" section) and how it was initially received and what its long-term reputation has been (for the "Reception" section).

4. Neutral point of view?: Relatively neutral.

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: The article could do with some more images. I'm not sure that a 19th century image of the Salem witch trials is even appropriate.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Awadewit | talk 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article also needs some allusion to the symbolism of the Crucible.

pmr 09:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction for this article seems to be too long. I think it needs to be split into appropriate sections. Squeater 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that while many scholars have agreed about Miller's allusion to the McCarthy trials, Miller himself denied that McCarthy was the real subject of the play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.107.176 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the introduction and I have no idea what the crucible is about. I know it's alluding to the McCarthy trials, but thats it. Does the play have something to do with witches or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.123.191 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a further reference to the Salem Witch Trials (it's already mentioned in the RH box) so I hope this makes this a bit clearer Andywebby (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

If I were to be "picky", I'd say that my one "complaint" is that there is no mention of the character of Judge Hathorne! While it is true that he is the lesser of the two judges, he is also the more "legalistic" of the two.

You may recall, also, that it is Hathorne who, when Proctor is about to 'confess', runs outside and shouts "He's confessing! Proctor is confessing", as if he's announcing this news to the whole world.

So, my one real question is: Why no mention of Judge Hathorne?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.

(Donleeman 16:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

"...based on the shootings surrounding the 1692 witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts"

Shootings? This is vandalism, correct? 69.250.246.129 23:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Picky?! u sir are one of the few intelligent people who can submit requests. nothin picky there!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00LinK1785 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Act II Quotes

really no quotes?? LAME!! i need more! ones for sam parris actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.76.239 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sparknotes copy and paste

Much of the plot summary is copied verbatim from sparknotes see website: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/crucible/section1.html

I'm unaware of the copy rights status of sparknotes but I believe blatant copying is pushing it. --NeoSoldier 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this too, it is a blatant copy and paste. 71.187.154.146 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then if its not removed in two days I will remove it. --PackersFan79 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Act Summaries/Characters

I seriously believe the act summaries and the character descriptions are incomplete. I think there is much more to be said about the course of events in the book and the characters. The Act summary is rather simple and a lot of important facts are left out. Rebecca Nurse, for example, is not mentioned until the last part of Act Four as a random character, while she had a lot more significance. The course of events is quite unclear to me. Being so much to be said about this play, these two sections could include a lot more. I was on my way to editing that to complete it when I noticed it was protected. It is really a shame as it is not a bad article, but it could be more complete.

190.49.121.61 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The character's name is John not James Proctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.122.14 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

And the only person executed who recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows was Rev. George Burroughs -- which caused quite a stir since it was generally believed at the time that a witch could not say the Lord's Prayer without making a mistake. They also would not have been hanged while praying, since the condemned were always allowed their last words and prayers.

* The hysteria did not die out "as more and more people refused to save themselves by giving false confessions," as the epilogue of the movie states. The opposite was true: more and more people gave false confessions to save themselves as it became apparent that confession could save one from the noose. What ended the trials was the intervention of Governor William Phips. Contrary to what Phips told the Crown in England, he was not off in Maine fighting the Indians in King William's War through that summer, since he attended governor's council meetings regularly that summer, which were also attended by the magistrates. But public opinion of the trials did take a turn. There were over two hundred people in prison when the general reprieve was given, but they were not released until they paid their prison fees. Neither did the tide turn when Abigail Williams accused Rev. Hale's wife, as the play claims -- although the "afflicted" did start accusing a lot more people far and wide to the point of absurdity, including various people around in other Massachusetts towns whom they had never laid eyes on, including notable people such as the famous hero Capt. John Alden (who escaped after being arrested).

* Giles Corey was not executed for refusing to name a witness, as portrayed in the movie. The play is accurate: he was accused of witchcraft, and refused to enter a plea, which held up the proceedings, since the law of the time required that the accused enter a plea. He was pressed to death with stones, but the method was used to try to force him to enter a plea so that his trial could proceed. Corey probably realized that if he was tried at all, he would be executed, and his children would be disinherited. (Interestingly, Miller wrote both the play and the screenplay... Who knows why he changed it to a less-accurate explanation for his punishment and execution?)

* There's a tiny scene in the movie with a goat getting into someone's garden and tempers flaring -- the actual history is that three years before the witchcraft accusations, a neighbor's pigs got into the Nurse family's fields, and Rebecca Nurse flew off the handle yelling at him about it. Soon thereafter, the neighbor had an apparent stroke and died within a few months. This was seen as evidence in 1692 of Rebecca Nurse's witchcraft.

I removed these from the historical accuracy section, since it relates to the movie not the book. 72.67.175.145 (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giles Corey's Death

There seems to be a slight inconsistency in the nature of his death in the play. From the article for Crushing it says: While in The Crucible (the play version), it is said that he is crushed to death for refusing to reveal the name, and then later says the "aye or nay" version. I will change it to the "aye or nay" version, but do correct me if I am wrong. --greeny210.50.148.242 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The long description of Margaret Clitherow's death in the Giles Corey section of the article seems unnecessarily detailed (almost as detailed as in the article on Margaret Clitherow), actually describing her execution in more detail than Giles'. Much of this description can (and should) be eliminated, and Giles' death should be described in more detail, possibly adding his last words. Timequake (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Act II Scene 2

Though my version (Pengiun) has Act 2 Scene 2 in the appendix (in which Proctor confronts Abigail), I can't find any mention of it anywhere online, especially here. My book says that it was included in the original presentation of the play, though not in the original published version. (?)

164.58.75.220 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the version my English teacher gave the class for us to read. I can find a mention of it, but no reasoning as to its removal. If anyone knows, it'd be nice to add it to the article. Gigametroid99 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiction or non-fiction

I'm not seeing anywhere that indicates whether or not this was fiction or non-fiction. I do know that many of the characters (if not all) were real people involved in the real witch trials, but I'm not sure if the Crucible is an accurate description of what happened, or if it's just a fictional play based on a real event, and this article doesn't say in the info box or the intro whether it is fiction or non-fiction, and it doesn't appear to be mentioned in any part of the article whether it is fiction or non-fiction. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

a play (theatre) is almost by definition fiction. even if biographical or historical it can only be based on actual events. --emerson7 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

James Proctor should be John

{{editsemiprotected}} The James Proctor listed among the characters should be John Proctor.

Fixed! --Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Historical Inaccuracies section is a clear copy and paste job

It is a clear copyright violation as the cited source is copyrighted material with not evidence permission was given. So unless anybody can give a reason why it is not, I'll remove it in 3 days. 66.65.74.35 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's far too large to be justified, notwithstanding the acknowledgement. Well spotted. Using Miller's own comment (at the top of the external piece) as a blockquote in the section seems acceptable: it can be sourced legitimately from the work cited for the existing "Northumberland accents" sentence, which could be retained. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As page protection is in force, so that unconfirmed users can't edit, I've jumped in and changed it, paraphrasing from two sources rather than quoting. We've had enough of that! Thanks, User:66.65.74.35 for spotting this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Character inaccuracies

In the recent viewings of this page, I have noticed the inaccurate naming of one minor character. In the ACT II section, the Marshal is named Herrick, when in reality, in the play he is named John Willard. I would request this change be made to promote accuracy in case of some wrong answers supplied to some scholars who wish to view this page in future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00LinK17 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In some productions the characters of Constable Willard (arresting officer) and Marshal Herrick (gaoler) are combined, under either of their names, but this isn't in the article. Well spotted! Can any contributor with a good knowledge of the editions of the play fix this? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanatory paragraph added. Thanks to user:00LinK17 for noticing the omission. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Love ya!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.143.145 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Versions

I have a version of the play with 5 acts rather than 4, where act 3 is the added act being an act revolving around Proctor and Abigail. Is this some kind of altered version or is it a fanfic my old theater teacher wrote? 216.41.16.82 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC) i agree, add the optional act into the description, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00LinK1785 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

missing character(s)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add Judge Jon Hathorne to the character list: The head judge of the court proceedings. Cold, ignorant, and antagonistic, he constantly denies any objections or new developments. if you like, please add more since i'm outta ideas.

Misspellings

right, so, in the act 4 section, abigail is misspelled twice. and since i can't edit because of the semi-protect, i can't do crap. Anyone want to help? 75.72.37.35 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Act IV mistake?

In Act IV it says that Elizabeth tried to get John to admit to being a wizard. Weren't both genders referred to as witches? Sorry if I'm incorrect, I have only seen the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.99.76 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It reflects a phrase in the playtext: see "Giles Corey", lower down. It's a good point, though: taken out of the context of its quote—which obvious needs to stay as it is—does the word strike a distracting note for a modern reader perhaps more familiar with "the boy who lived"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with McCarthyism

Based on the intro, I was expecting to find some discussion of the play's relation to McCarthyism, but there isn't any. Could some knowledgeable person address this area? --Doradus (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Miller himself discusses his inspiration for THE CRUCIBLE in his autobiography TIMEBENDS. Following a visit to see Elia Kazan, where Kazan informed Miller of his intentions to name names before HUAC, Miller made a pilgrimage to Salem to read the historical documentation of the "witch trials." Now, does inspiration for a play belong in the main text of an article on said play? I am not sure. The term "McCarthyism" should perhaps be better explained, or perhaps it already is, as Miller had no interaction with Joe McCarthy or the Senator's anti-Communist Senate hearings. But the term "McCarthyism" is an accepted catch-phrase for the anti-Communist hysteria of the time, which I believe is clearly stated in that opening phrase and may be enough to direct the reader to that article and understand the inspiration. Horwendil (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider the current mention of McCarthyism sufficient, especially since McCarthyism is linked for the reader to get more details about that topic. If properly sourced, however, a few statements about "allegory to McCarthyism" would be acceptable. But it cannot be a substantial part of the article because the article is not long, and adding much more about McCarthyism would violate WP:WEIGHT; the article is about the play, not McCarthyism. Also note that more details are available in the Arthur Miller article, which of course is linked in The Crucible article. Cresix (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for more information on McCarthyism. I was asking for more information on this play's relation to McCarthyism. That is clearly on-topic, WP:WEIGHT notwithstanding. (Incidentally, that's the first time I've heard the brevity of an article used as an argument against adding new material!) --Doradus (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)