Jump to content

Talk:Nuts (play)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cast

[edit]

Re: Questions about which original cast members to list: Having edited a lot of Film articles here, I know that complete casts are frowned upon on those articles; only the main cast is listed, since the complete cast is available on the everpresent IMDB link. The same seems to apply even more to plays, which articles generally only list one to three original leads, if that. Cf: any of the articles in the category "American plays." The cast of a play that ran on Broadway for less than three months does not warrant a full original cast list in the Wikipedia article, especially since the complete clickable cast list is available on the everpresent IBDB link. It's a question of relevance. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the complete cast is listed in the film article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that. [UPDATE: The cast list on the film article is bascially only the main characters. The film cast is actually 48 characters: [1].] The film article is nearly barren of any info but that cast box, all of which actors have Wikipedia articles. It doesn't change the fact that the complete cast of a Broadway run under 3 months lacks relevance. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary in detail

[edit]

I added an infobox and made some corrections to the article. Neither of the sources I consulted suggested the Broadway version of the play greatly differed from its original off-off-Broadway staging, so I changed the date of the play to 1979. Rather than have a separate list of characters, I incorporated details about them into the plot synopsis. (This is common in film articles; if the policy for play articles differs, I apologize for being bold.) Anne Twomey was nominated for the Tony as a Leading, not Featured, Actress.

Re: the discussion above, I see no reason not to name the actors who portrayed each of the characters mentioned in the plot synopsis. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough compromise — it's not the full nine characters but it's six of them, which is more than the three I had. Softlavender (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building

[edit]

Since extensive changes have been made to the article by one editor, as is the case in such exensive changes, some of them have been kept, some of them have been integrated more naturally into the article, and some of the have been deemed unnecessary or unproductive, and have been reverted. I invite those concerned to discuss their desired changes here. The editors involved in this article are happy to discuss and consider each issue concept by concept, section by section, line by line, or word by word, as is desired. Please continue the discussion below, per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_building_in_talk_pages. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to question changes made to the article, you are welcome to begin a discussion here, but without first reverting the article to the version you prefer yet again. There has been a major discussion about this issue at User talk:LiteraryMaven, where Softlavender recklessly accused me of editing this article anonymously, an allegation that is untrue. As I stated on my talk page, I've created more than one hundred articles and edited hundreds more, and I'm both pleased with and proud of my contributions to Wikipedia. I have no qualms about expressing and defending my opinions as LiteraryMaven and have no reason to edit articles or make comments anonymously.
Softlavender seems to feel the fact he created this article gives him ownership rights to it, and he continues to revert all changes to it. I would like to discuss the following issues:
  • Softlavender's original plot synopsis was rather vague and named only two characters. I expanded it by identifying four additional major characters - her mother Rose, stepfather Arthur, Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist Herbert Rosenthal, and Judge Murdoch. I also specified Claudia is indicted for manslaughter in the first degree. Initially, Softlavender incorrectly changed "manslaughter" to "murder" with the edit summary "IMO no reason to split legal hairs here -- 3.5 times more Google sources refer to 'murder' over 'manslaughter', plus the para has too much blue already." No matter what the Google sources might say, the play refers to her crime as "manslaughter," and correctly identifying it as such is not "splitting legal hairs," it's a matter of accuracy. Softlavender finally backed down and allowed it to remain "manslaughter," but refuses to Wikilink it because "there's too much blue." Oddly, he Wikilinks New York City, but not "manslaughter," a term more likely to require an explanation for some readers. From the synopsis he has removed the fact Herbert Rosenthal is a Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist and has deleted Judge Murdoch's name completely, without justification. Additionally, he has replaced the easily understood phrase "As testimony is heard" with "As findings progress," which doesn't even make sense. A trial progresses, but findings are the conclusion reached by a judge after the examination or consideration of facts and data. They can't progress because they are the final result. Why should an omission of details and sloppy writing be considered a valid edit?
  • Softlavendar insists on citing the film adaptation of the play in the opening paragraph. I have accessed a dozen or so articles about plays that later were adapted for the screen, and none of them refer to the film in the opening. According to the guidelines at [2], a separate section for adaptations and/or versions in an article about a play is optional, but in the event one is included, "If a play was turned into a TV show or film, that should be noted here, with a link to any relevant Wikipedia articles." Nowhere do these guidelines even remotely suggest the film adaptation of a play should be included in the article's opening or mentioned before History, Synopsis, and Productions sections, which are far more important to an article specifically about a play than who starred in a later screen version.
Had the article as Softlavendar had written it been perfect, I would have had no need to edit it. But he had not included an infobox, he incorrectly identified the year of the play, he failed to mention Universal Pictures purchased the film rights and then financed the play's move to a Broadway venue, he neglected to list all the cast members, and his plot synopsis lacked details, so the article needed work. The changes I made were valid, as were those made later by other editors. I fail to understand Softlavender's allegation that "some of the have been deemed unnecessary or unproductive" or why he apparently is the only one who has the power to "deem" them as such and keep reverting them without reason. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Literary Maven, and welcome. Thanks for your contributions to the article. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_building_in_talk_pages and Wikipedia:Bold,_revert,_discuss_cycle, let's keep the discussion moving forward by addressing, one at a time, and case by case, the further edits you wish made, without making personal assumptions and references. I'm sure all of the editors involved in this article have opinions regarding each situation that are reasonable and of value, and a collaborative effort will result in mutual understanding and consensus. Would you mind simply listing each change you would like to see? That way, other editors can respond to each issue, and an agreeable solution/consensus can be reached. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made my concerns fairly clear. However, for those who might have trouble grasping them . . .


Thanks very much. Let me respond to each concern/request:

A. Revert the synopsis to:

When strong-willed, high class call girl Claudia Draper is indicted for manslaughter in the first degree after killing a client in self defense, her mother Rose and stepfather Arthur attempt to have her declared mentally incompetent by Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist Herbert Rosenthal in order to avoid a family scandal. Public defender Aaron Levinsky is assigned to her case, but Claudia is angry and distrustful of everybody, and she not only resists his help but disrupts her court hearings, over which Judge Murdoch is presiding, as well. As testimony is heard, new insights into Claudia's entire life experience, including sexual abuse by her stepfather, begin to surface.

1. because it names and identifies all the major characters

Identifying every single major character (six of them) makes those two sentences too wordy, and difficult to grasp for the reader. It's too much unnecessary detail. Therefore, to make the plot synopsis more easily readable, I have omitted the judge's name. Full characters' names are listed in the Performance section of the article. It's not necessary to explain who the judge is in the plot summary or give his name, because all courtroom proceedings have a judge. Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. explains why Claudia's parents want her declared mentally incompetent

The synopsis quoted actually doesn't explain why Caudia's parents want her declared mentally incompetent. Her parents are not concerned about a self-defense manslaughter charge, they are concerned about Claudia's prostitution becoming public knowledge. A declaration of mental incompetence would prevent a trial and prevent a scandal over Claudia's prostitution. This needs to be mentioned in the plot synopsis. The result of a declaration of mental incompetence would cause Claudia to be institutionalized, which is why Claudia wants to fight it. This should be mentioned in the plot synopsis. Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. includes logical Wikilinks

There are too many links for my taste, because excessive linking reduces readability. I've moved mention of Bellevue to elsewhere in the article, since that as well made the synopsis overly wordy, unwieldy, and difficult to read/grasp. The call girl link is incorrect -- there is a separate article on call girls, and the link should go there. Whether or not manslaughter should be wikilinked is a judgment call -- if there is consensus to link it, that's fine with me; however there's no reason to increase the wordiness of the two sentences by adding "in the first degree". Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. and deletes grammatically incorrect and meaningless phrasing.

Please be specific. Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Remove the reference to the film adaptation in the opening paragraph because it is at odds with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure.

Per that link: "The introduction should briefly mention any derivative works (films, television shows), as well as any source material (based on a book, etc.)" Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really having that much trouble understanding LiteraryMaven or are you just being difficult? He was very specific about the grammatically incorrect and meaningless phrasing. He said you replaced the easily understood phrase "As testimony is heard" with "As findings progress," and he said this didn't make sense because "findings are the conclusion reached by a judge after the examination or consideration of facts and data. They can't progress because they are the final result." I agree with this completely.

I concur with LiteraryMaven's synopsis. I disagree with you about all of the following:

  1. You say "Identifying every single major character (six of them) makes those two sentences too wordy, and difficult to grasp for the reader." Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be written for third graders?
  2. You say, "to make the plot synopsis more easily readable, I have omitted the judge's name." How did removing one name make the plot synopsis "more easily readable"?
  3. You say, "Full characters' names are listed in the Performance section of the article" but what's the point of even listing an actor who played a role that's not mentioned in the synopsis in the first place?
  4. You say, "It's not necessary to explain who the judge is in the plot summary or give his name, because all courtroom proceedings have a judge." The synopsis is not explaining what a judge is or what his responsibilities are, it's identifying the one in this play, who happens to be a major character who shouldn't be omitted.
  5. You say, "The synopsis quoted actually doesn't explain why Caudia's parents want her declared mentally incompetent." Which synopsis are you reading? The one quoted says, "her mother Rose and stepfather Arthur attempt to have her declared mentally incompetent by Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist Herbert Rosenthal in order to avoid a family scandal." That explains it clearly enough to me.
  6. You say, "There are too many links for my taste, because excessive linking reduces readability." "My taste" is strictly your POV and isn't a valid reason for eliminating links. And links don't reduce readability, they aid readers who might want an explanation of a word or term they don't understand. As LiteraryMaven pointed out, you don't want to link "manslaughter" but you link "New York City". If you're worried about excessive linking, remove the one most people don't need, not the one that clarifies the difference between murder and manslaughter, which a lot of people might not understand. And since "manslaughter in the first degree" is a very specific charge that's mentioned in the text of the play, that's exactly what it should say. Why are you so worried about "the wordiness" of a synopsis that right now is only 95 words long? If anything it should be expanded, not shortened!
  7. You say, "I've moved mention of Bellevue to elsewhere in the article, since that as well made the synopsis overly wordy, unwieldy, and difficult to read/grasp." Again, just two words made the synopsis "overly wordy, unwieldy, and difficult to read/grasp"? No offense, but it's very difficult to take you seriously when you make a comment like that.
  8. You are correct when you say the guidelines suggest that the introduction should briefly mention any derivative works so I have no problem with mentioning the film in the opening, but I think some reference to the play's production should be made first.

How about this for an alternate opening?

Nuts is a 1979 play by Tom Topor. It is a suspense, psychological, and courtroom drama that explores sexual abuse issues, family and social power dynamics, and aspects of the criminal court system. It was staged off-off-Broadway in 1979 and transferred to Broadway the following year. A 1987 film adaptation stars Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss.

And how about this for an alternate synopsis?

Strong-willed, high class call girl Claudia Draper kills a client in self defense and is indicted for manslaughter in the first degree. Her mother Rose and stepfather Arthur are anxious to avoid a family scandal so they attempt to have her declared mentally incompetent by Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist Herbert Rosenthal. Realizing if her parents succeed she will be remanded to a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time, Claudia is determined to prove she is sane enough to stand trial.

Public defender Aaron Levinsky is assigned to her case, but Claudia is angry and distrustful of everybody, and she not only resists his help but disrupts her court hearings, over which Judge Murdoch is presiding, as well. As testimony is heard, new insights into Claudia's entire life experience, including sexual abuse by her stepfather, begin to surface.

None of the sentences are "wordy" and all the key plot details and major characters are mentioned. I don't see any reason why anyone should object to this version. MovieMadness (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, MM. To keep the conversation readable and respondable by everyone involved in this article, and to allow thorough and complete discussion of each point, would you mind moving your comments about each point directly underneath the appropriate discussion of that point (using indents)? Thanks very much.

As for your suggested revisions, I think they are an excellent start towards resolution/consensus. I would change a couple of things (1) Off-Off-Broadway is initial caps; high-class needs to be hyphenated as an adjective preceding a noun. (2) The synopsis needs to make it clear that the family scandal the parents are wishing to avoid is not the manslaughter trial, but Claudia's prostitution coming to light. (3) I'd change "remanded to a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time" to "institutionalized" (why use 11 words, one of which is legalese, when you can use one?). (4) Lastly, and this is a minor point, the killing of Claudia's client does not happen in the play — it precedes the action of the play, which takes place in the Bellevue courtroom. That can be solved by making the first sentence past tense. Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any discussion like this with comments interspersed after each point instead of each contributor's complete statement following one after the other. It seems like you either have trouble being able to follow a discussion or you're just trying to be very difficult. I'm not aware of any guidelines that suggest or demand that a discussion should be conducted your way. I made my comments, they're easy to understand, and I'm not going to shift them just to cater to your whims. Honestly, it'll be easier to believe that you're willing to bend a little if you stop being so petty.

  1. The Webster's New World Dictionary definition for "off-Broadway" (p. 987) spells "off" in lower case. So do Helen Hayes and Anita Loos in their memoir Twice Over Lightly (p. 60) and Alan Jay Lerner in The Musical Theatre: A Celebration (p. 224), just to cite two books at random. I'm sure I could find dozens of other examples that prove off-Broadway is acceptable.
  2. Why use eleven words instead of one? Because "remanded to a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time" is very specific and "institutionalized" is not. Why are you determined to shorten the synopsis to a handful of words? Why do you think that's appropriate?
  3. Revised synopsis:

"After killing a client in self defense, strong-willed, high-class call girl Claudia Draper is indicted for manslaughter in the first degree. Her mother Rose and stepfather Arthur are anxious to avoid the family scandal that would result from the public revelation of their daughter's chosen career, so they attempt to have her declared mentally incompetent by Bellevue Hospital psychiatrist Herbert Rosenthal. Realizing she will be remanded to a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time if her parents succeed, Claudia is determined to prove she is sane enough to stand trial.

Public defender Aaron Levinsky is assigned to her case, but Claudia is angry and distrustful of everybody. She not only resists his help but disrupts her court hearings, over which Judge Murdoch is presiding, as well. As testimony is heard, new insights into Claudia's entire life experience, including sexual abuse by her stepfather, begin to surface." MovieMadness (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just read your comments in the first discussion you started on this page. You said "the complete cast of a Broadway run under 3 months lacks relevance." There are people who might say "a play with a run under 3 months lacks relevance" and wonder why you wrote this article at all. I would defend its existence, but I also would say as long as it exists it should exist as fully as possible, and that includes listing the actors in key roles whether it ran 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 years. Why would you create an article and then try to keep it as short as possible? I'm really trying to understand your train of thought and motivation and it would help a lot if you could explain yourself. MovieMadness (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I apologize for overlooking the statement "The introduction should briefly mention any derivative works," and I concede the film adaptation of the play should be mentioned in the opening. I think the new one suggested by MovieMadness is fine and should replace the current one.
Any debate about the correct spelling of off-off-Broadway and off-Broadway probably should be reserved for the discussion pages of those articles. I have three dictionaries, all of which use lower-case when spelling "off," and an extensive library of theatre-related books, and all of those I consulted also use lower-case. The only reference book where I found it capitalized is a desktop encyclopedia published by Time. It appears the lower-case spelling is used widely. However, I would hate an ongoing debate of "off" vs. "Off" to delay a resolution of this discussion, so I am willing to let it go either way.
I think the new synopsis suggested by MovieMadness is perfect. It mentions all the major characters, which I felt was important, and it clarifies Claudia's parents' reason for wanting her declared incompetent, which should satisfy Softlavender's concerns. At only 148 words, it is considerably shorter than the recommended length for a plot summary, but it certainly is not "overly wordy, unwieldy, and difficult to read/grasp." It is a well-written compromise I am willing to accept.
With all the Wikipedia articles desperately in need of expansion and correction, I hope we can put the discussion about this relatively minor one to rest and move on to other projects that could benefit from our attention. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AMEN! MovieMadness (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender hasn't logged on to Wikipedia since the day she started this discussion. She might be on vacation but I'm surprised she didn't say she was going away since she had so much interest in the article. I'm going to make the changes that were discussed since she's in the minority anyway. MovieMadness (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuts_(play)&oldid=1204364674"