Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mercy"

Revision as of 02:12, September 12, 2008

As sweet and touching as this article is (currently), is this really an encyclopedic article? Am I able to take any adjective and create a Conservapedia article by citing scripture or poetry exclusively? And UNATTRIBUTED poetry at that? I'm sorry, but this was placed here with absolutely NO attribution to William Shakespeare. I'm getting disgusted with the poor quality of contributions here. Conservapedia? How about "Plagiarize-apedia." See plagiarism. Get with the program people. --AdmiralNelson 12:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This is a wiki. Don't just complain about it, FIX it. --DeanS^talk 15:04, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Good idea. Wondering why you took the time to respond instead of fixing it yourself. --AdmiralNelson 16:07, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Because you made a general comment "I'm getting disgusted with the poor quality of contributions here." Thus my general statement. If you have a problem with the quality of contributions, fix the articles. --DeanS^talk 16:26, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

There. How old are you two, 4? -DrSandstone 16:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your civil and polite response. It speaks for itself. --AdmiralNelson 16:12, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

FYI. I went ahead and supplied a definition and added the stub tag. --AdmiralNelson 16:22, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I reinserted the quoted material and souced it within the copy. Maybe it's just the level of vandalism on this site but people have such a difficult time remaining civil at times. Marge 16:29, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. I went ahead and clarified and made more accurate the entire quote and clearified attribution. Thanks for your contribution in any case. If I weren't currently involved your contribution stands as a responsible contribution. DeanS's comment was the most appropriate herein, by the way. --AdmiralNelson 16:38, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I appologze for my remark, the bickering here lately has gotten on my nerves. -DrSandstone 16:32, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Apology accepted. --AdmiralNelson 16:39, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Shylock as money lending Jew

. . . And earthly power doth then show likest God's,

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy.

It is an accurate statement, but not a neutral one, as it is reinforcing an outdated stereotype which is irrelevant to the subject of this article. We do not refer to Einstein as a "physicist Jew" or Freud as a "psychoanalist Jew", so why do we need to say that Shylock was a "money lending Jew". A "money lender" is sufficient in this context. Sideways 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. If you have to have his faith in there (which you don't), at least say "Jewish moneylender". HelpJazz 13:54, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Sideways and HelpJazz. I note that Portia's religion is not mentioned. Shylock's religion - and Shakespeare's treatment of it - may be relevant to an article on the play, but it is not relevant here. I shall delete the reference. If the reference is restored, I shall block the person who restored it. Bugler 14:19, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Portia's religion is not mentioned in the quoted passage. Shylock's religion is mentioned. Portia's profession (trial lawyer?) is mentioned in the introductory sentence, yet her profession appears nowhere in the cited text. To be consistent, we should probably delete the mention of both Portia's and Shylock's professions, or just note accurately that Shylock is a Jew as in, "Shylock (a Jew)"). I would be interested in opinions as to whether simply and accurately denoting that someone is a "Jew" could be seen as pejorative. --AdmiralNelson 22:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)