Talk:The Cask of Amontillado

message: No, it is NOT part of the story. I've re-read it, and could not find it anywere. I do believe it was vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.147.61 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Bullet please.100110100 03:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stories influenced by "The Cask of Amontillado"

message: I've read somewhere that the narrator (montressor) is in the process of receiving his final rites. The story is a confession, to clean his soul before he dies. In the versions I've read, there are two lines that are italicized: "For the Love of God Montressor!" and "In pace requiescat." Montressor's motives behind his confession change when the italicized words are read as the voice of a priest (listening to Montressor's confession) rather than Fortunado. "For the Love of God, Montressor!" may have been the last words of Fortunado OR it could have been the voice of the priest expressing his horror at Montressor's confession. "In pace requiescat" could be Montressor's words to Fortunado OR it could be the priest's words to Montressor when he dies.
:→ I don't think it's likely.  If you were to take "For the love of God, Montresor!" out of the story line, as if a priest were saying it, why would his reply (to the priest) not be in italics as well?  In addition to that, if he were saying In pace requiescat! to the priest, it would be in quotes, instead of like it is, without them, speaking to the reader.  4.244.171.117 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Montressor's Last Rites?

message: We have an article on Nemo me impune lacessit. Should it not be mentioned in the article here? --Mais oui! 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great call... I added it a few days ago based on your suggestion. Midnightdreary 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nemo me impune lacessit'' 

message: The Works Influenced section has gotten a bit long. I'm thinking a massive edit is needed, converting the narratives to much more succinct bullet points. Any thoughts? Midnightdreary 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have added an OR tag to this section. Absent a reliable secondary source attesting that a particular story was inspired or influenced by TCoA, stating that such an influence or inspiration exists is speculation and original research. In addition, the section is bloating into a "spot the reference" pop culture segment, amounting to a trivia section which is to be avoided. Otto4711 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know these types of sections are problematic - but some of these can be salvaged. The only ones I would suggest are speculative are James Thurber, Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child and Arthur Conan Doyle. The others are fairly obvious and either use Poe's name (Martian Chronicles) or exact quotes that are definitive of the story which certainly aren't coincidental ("For the love of God, Robinson." "Yes, for the love of God."). It's up for debate, though.  -Midnightdreary 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I argue that more than a few references can be removed. The only ones strictly relevant are those that specifically use Poe's name or exact quotes. All the rest "inspired by" are suspect. Merely walling up or burying someone alive is not sufficient to claim inspiration or reference to TCoA. Poe himself certainly did not invent the motif. Nuranar 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Works Influenced

message: Okay, here's the thing with the analysis. To avoid accusations of original research, every other sentence should have an in-line citation, referencing as many sources as possible. The large block quotes (which, I would argue, are unnecessary and should be paraphrased) should definitely be followed with an in-line citation. I'll wait on B9 hummingbird hovering, because these are your additions, it should be up to you to start adding citations. How many sources are you using, by the way? --Midnightdreary 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One Source template tag has been added to the Analysis section. It would be nice if the editor who has been working on it would respond to my comments! :)  I do have some questions... why is "sic" added throughout the block quote? Why are the block quotes even there? How is this single source so notable and relevant that it is used so extensively? I think this article is one of the closest relating to Poe to potential Good Article status, so let's make sure we're going about this the right way. I'm going to start adding further citation requests in the next day or two. --Midnightdreary 12:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: It is set in Italy, but the time is unknown. You can't just assume that the story is set in the 1800s because that is the time it was written or published. I think an unkonwn time, or something along those lines would fit better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.98.113 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad point. Because there is no clear date given, it probably shouldn't mention anything at all. I'll make the change. --Midnightdreary 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century Italy? 

message: Could it be that Montresor's arms show a scene from the Bible? It's in the story of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden when God says to the snake "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."  (1 Mose 3, 15 New International Version) Maybe Poe was influenced by that scene; at least I've never encountered these arms anywhere else.
ViennaUK (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it could be just a fictitious coat of arms. Really, it's not a bad theory or suggestion - but you'd need a more scholarly source to include it here, lest it be considered original research. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montresor's coat of arms 

message: I don't have a source for this yet, but my understanding of the story in relation to theme is not that it speaks out against drunkenness, but instead speaks out against revenge, showing the evil caused by Montresor's insanity and obsession. Has anyone else heard it this way? Does anyone have a source relating to this? Comments? JoeyETS (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It speaks out against revenge?? Considering the story in relation to Thomas Dunn English, it doesn't seem like a believable interpretation. There are so many ways to interpret any story, but I would take that one with a grain of salt. In particular, scholars tend to point out the nearly complete lack of remorse Montresor has for his actions. Considering he literally gets away with murder, it hardly seems like a cautionary tale against revenge. Even so, if you find a source, toss it in here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds persuasive, but, without a source, it also sounds like original research. If you have a source please cite it, as I'm really interested in seeing more on this. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Interpretation 

message: I believe that Montresor's family motto was probably borrowed from the British 42nd Highland Regiment, on whose cap badge it appears150.231.246.1 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. If you have a source that says that Poe may have been inspired by that particular regiment, feel free to add it in. Otherwise, it's just original research. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montresor's Family Motto 

message: The word "Montressor" is not used anywhere in the article, yet it redirects here.  You should either explain the term or delete the redirect.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Montresor (correct spelling) is the name of the main character in the story. My assumption is that someone created the redirect for the misspelling. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You're here because of the Questionable Content reference too, right? ;)  Elmo iscariot (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montressor 

message: Listen, I've read quite a bit of your stuff related to "The Casque" and you seem to be very on top of things.  However, how you can support the theory that "Montresor's motive for murder is uncertain other than the vague "many injuries" to which he refers", I have no clue.  The entire first paragraph in the story gives more the a simple explanation as to why Montresor has decided to do away with Fortunato.  "The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had born as best I could." That's "thousand" not "many" as you quote.  And then to not give more credit to the guy who suggested the theory that Montresor was giving a confession, when within the next few lines Montresor the unarguable narrator of the story utters " You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave utterance of a threat." To whom do you suggest he is talking to? God, a priest, or do you offer that it is the reader with whom Montresor relays his story?  Then to give credit to the arbitrary and rather complacent theory that Montresor must be insane to have  committed this murder is, for lack of a better word, a cop-out, especially when you consider the context of date and time within which the story was written, 1846 a period in time when insults were grounds for duels and death.  Consider for a moment that in our own country (assuming that you live in the States) Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr dueled to the death not 42 years prior. Is it then so hard to consider that insult alone was motive? I think not.  
Right, so there you have it.  Cheers, and have a great weekend!
Alex Marvel
University of Alaska  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogwoodflowers (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be so aggressive. The Wikipedia project is based on verifiability, and you'll note that the majority of the analysis given in this article is sourced to reliable sources. It is not up to any of us to analyze this story (or any other) but to provide previously-published analysis. If you find sources that make the statements you made, feel free to add them. However, keep in mind that analysis is, by its very nature, unprovable and, as such, no theory is ever wrong or right. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No motive, really? 

message: "Though Fortunato is presented as a connoisseur of fine wine, his actions in the story make it questionable. For example, he becomes so drunk he would be unable to identify the Amontillado and treats De Grave, an expensive French wine, with very little regard by drinking it in a single gulp"
Why is it questionable? Connossieur doesn't always mean snob. Fortunado seemed the glutton to me in the story. Plus, it's also possible even a snob who has access to all the best wines might dipose of them in such a gulping fashion to prove the reverence belongs to his person, and not the wine. Perhaps it would be better to toss in a qualifier: "...some find his actions in the story questionable." That way it doesn't sound so, well, snobby. 24.163.127.19 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about being a snob? A true connoisseur of fine wine would not drink it down in a selfish gulp. Instead, they would savor the flavor slowly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle with what the original contributor says. The implication by Midnightdreary that all connoisseurs of fine wine always drink wine slowly and savor it is extreme because it suggests that one subpopulation always behaves in exactly the same way, which is a very well known fallacy. Midnightdreary also doesn't cite any sources for his/her assertion. The original contributor also doesn't cite sources, but s/he uses reasoning to challenge an unreferenced statement in the article, and that's legitimate. I'm even against saying that "some" people claim something is true unless those people are identified, because otherwise there's no evidence that anyone says anything of the kind. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is from almost four years ago. The commentary on whether or not Fortunato is a connoisseur is sourced to an article from Poe Studies. Why do you think it is unreferenced? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, same guy as the IP above, but I've gotten an account in the meantime. :) I did a careful reading of the article in Poe Studies that is used as the reference you mention: . The author appears to be a literary critic, and while he does provide references to wine experts, they relate strictly to the subject of what "Amontillado" is and not to the defining characteristics of a wine connoisseur. I question the author's qualifications to make assertions in that area. There is also question about source reliability as I don't see an article on Poe Studies and can't evaluate the magazine's reputation among relevant scholars. Finally, I am personally offended by the author's suggestion that Fortunato deserved to be buried alive because he behaved badly toward a bottle of fine wine, as that assertion strikes me as psychopathic. For all of those reasons I question the validity of the source. Guyovski (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Poe Studies is a premier journal for the Poe Studies Association, a group of scholars dedicated to the study of Poe and his works. It is a peer-edited journal and certainly qualifies as a reliable source. If you like, the line could easily read "Such and such scholar suggests..." --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The qualification you suggest is pretty much exactly what the original contributor in this subsection asked for, although s/he did kind of use fighting words. I don't share that person's reasoning that it would be "less snobby" to say that (in that person's words) "some people say" or (in your words) "such and such scholar suggests" that Fortunato's connoisseurship is doubtful, and I don't think that matters. It would just make it seem like less of a timeless philosophical argument constructed in a vacuum and more like what it is, which is material drawn from a referenced statement. And if you review the thread of exchanges under this heading, I'm sure you can see that the confusion arose because the original contributor interpreted the existing text as making absolute claims about the nature of wine connoisseurs (which is an impression that your immediate reply to that person reinforced in my mind). That sort of thing is out of place in an article on a piece of short fiction, partly because it is fiction. So go ahead and make the edit or let me know whether you want me to do it. Guyovski (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and give it a shot. No pun intended. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit completed, although I forgot to log in first. Please note that I feel very strongly about including the last sentence of that revised paragraph. If you want it removed please let's discuss it first. Guyovski (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. I don't necessarily see the need for that particular line personally; I can't tell if he was trying to be humorous or to show the level of serious dedication among connoisseurs. Thanks for joining the discussion here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Connoisseur

message: I removed this from the article:
:One major question in this story is to whom Montresor is confessing this tale.  Towards the beginning of the story, the narrator says, "Surely, you..." Who is the "you" being addressed? There are many hints that would suggest that it is a priest.  First, the story takes place in Italy, the center of Catholicism.  Also, at the end of the story, Montresor mentions that it has been fifty years since the murder, which would mean that he is very old.  That could mean that Montresor is dying, on his death bed.  Also, there are two sentences at the end that are italicized.  The first is, "For the love of God, Montresor!" and the second is, "In pace requiescat." These sentences could be said by the obvious people, Fortunato and Montresor, respectively, or they could have been said by the priest.  For the second sentence, if Montresor is saying it then he is expressing the lack of remorse for his murder.  However, it could be the priest saying it.  In this case, it would mean that Montresor had just died after getting his last rites.
First off, this is original research. Second, the italics are far more likely to be for the obvious reasons: Fortunato is speaking in italics because he's shouting, and "In pace requiescat" is in italics because it's in a foreign language, both of which are very common conventions. Moreover, the italics may have been added by somebody other than Poe (it wasn't exactly typical for writers to typeset their own documents in those days). It sounds to me that this priest theory is grasping at straws. It may be what Poe had in mind, but it doesn't seem likely enough to warrant inclusion. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: this content was original research. There is no reason to attempt any dispute of it. Let's leave it out. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "priest" theory 

message: What is the signifigance of Montresor dropping the burning torch through the gap?
:"He listens for a reply but hears only the jester's bells ringing. Before placing the last stone, he drops a burning torch through the gap. He claims that he feels sick at heart, but dismisses this reaction as an effect of the dampness of the catacombs.
:In the last few sentences, Montresor reveals that it has been 50 years since the murder, he has never been caught, and Fortunato's body still hangs from its chains in the niche where he left it. The murderer, seemingly unrepentant, ends the story by remarking: In pace requiescat (may he rest in peace)."  -67.163.242.5 (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely not clear in the story. I think for the purpose of this article, what we have in the plot summary is fine as it seems to be the conventional reading of it. An alternative reading would need a source (my first internal thought is, how aware are people in the 1840s that fire consumes oxygen?). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Torch 

message: The narrator's name is usually given as "Montresor" (with a single s). In one instance in the tale's first publication in Godey's, towards the end, it is spelled "Montressor" (with a double s). As the single s version is more often used in the tale, in its future printings, and in all other discussions in scholarship, criticism, etc., this article should use the spelling Montresor (as it currently does). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montresor/Montressor 

message: Right now this article looks pretty solid to me, although I'm no expert. Perhaps it should be considered for promotion to B-Class or even A-Class. Since I don't know how to do that myself, could someone who does know that make the nomination? 67.71.2.203 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to nominate for B-Class

message: I would be interested in reading something as to how well the story sold originally, and its critical reviews, if any.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.125.102 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: I plan on revising the plot summary of the story to make it more complete and accurate since there are holes in the plot summary as well as misinformation.  There is also misinformation in the “analysis” section; I will correct this information and cite accordingly. User talk:Ejenn2 Ejenn2 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Remember to source like crazy in the "analysis" section, even if it's information with which you disagree. Also, regarding the plot summary: I caution editors to remember it is merely a brief synopsis, not a detail-by-detail rewriting of the story in its entirety. Not that I anticipated that from this particular editor, but less is often more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions to Page

message: I am interested in the idea mentioned in the previous analysis about the the idea of 'detection' in this work. Also, does anyone else agree that there is a split in Montressor's persona? RutgersUniversityStudentEdit (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic but a place to discuss ways to improve the article and/or come to consensus on potentially controversial content. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: "The Torch"...
In the Wiki summary, The main point of Montresor's plan of revenge seems to have been missed. Early in the story, you will read about Montresor looking forward to Fortunato's "immolation" (fiery death). Then later during the trek through the crypt, in search of the non-existent cask, you will see reference to "nitre" formed on the walls. As the story reaches it's climax at the end, there is an abundance of "nitre" in the niche where Montresor walls in Fortunato.
 
Nitre is an archaic word for a volatile substance used in the making of black powder, also known as saltpeter. It is a naturally occurring nitrate. It is very flammable. It forms in damp places where decay is present. A white crystalline substance often found in manure piles in minute quantities. 
In the final moments, Montresor thrusts the lit torch through the hole just before he fills it in with the last brick. The torch ignites the saltpeter (nitre) covering the walls and floor of the niche. Fortunato dies in a superheated fire in a confined space.
When this happens, the lungs are completely cooked at the instant the superheated gasses are inhaled involuntarily, rendering the victim unable to even scream in agony in their final moments. When considered, this adds an even more grisly and horrific aspect to an already macabre tale. And hence, his utter and complete "immolation" for having offended Montresor..... --Nitrejack 00:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a lot of work here yourself. Please see WP:OR. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've read the story myself. Probably over 100 times. But see Wikipedia's policy on original research, reliable sources, etc. This story is not explicitly the way you describe it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this information for It makes the story more horrible in regard to Montressor revenge....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.88.250 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Nitrejack is completely correct. The plan is for immolation, thus the nitre. The torch is thrust through the gap to create a pizza oven for Fortunato. It's quite clear. Pisomojado (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! If it's so clear, we should have no problem finding scores of reliable sources to confirm it and then we can use one of those to cite on Wikipedia. Let me know what you find. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

text: This is again original research and, therefore, not usable here. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buried alive? No, that was not Montresor's plan. 

message: Inside of the inspiration box there is a legend which is equal to saying he say she say as to where Edgar Allen Poe would get his inspiration for the story named "The Cask of Amontillado". The legend claiming he had ained ispiration at Castle Island does not seem reliable and should not be inthe text. A legend can mislead readers which will cause confusion as to whether it is true, and when you read further it claims that the statue that tells the tale of a man being chained to a wall and sealed in a vault is false. Which makes the legend less reliable, contradicting its own self, this will make the legend being in the text pointless. Rlync3 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand what you're trying to say, but apologize if I'm incorrect. I would argue that the text is not at all pointless: the legend is so prevalent, that not addressing it here would be a serious omission. Information is provided which shows that the story is apocryphal; there should be no confusion for readers. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The legend should be included as it is very much a part of the story's history, even if it is myth. However, I would suggest that mention of Fort Independence be made as well, as that is where Poe was stationed. Castle Island is the island on which the Fort sits. Saying Castle Island without mentioning Fort Independence is like saying West Point, New York when what you mean is the United States Military Academy. 82.203.24.1 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration fact or foe? 

message: Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Cask of Amontillado" has an irony theme where Montresor foreshadows or somewhat mocks Fortunato of what may come for him in the future. Poe would uses irony throughout the story when he let the protagonist and the antagonist have a toast. Montresor says "And I, Fortunato, I drink to your long life." Montresor uses the irony as a sense of humor before he buries Fortunato alive. Rlync3 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme 

message: I am adding a character section to the article :
Montresor- The narrator of the story who has laid out a plan to kill Fortunato for the amount of pain he has caused Montresor for a long period of time. Comes from a wealthy respected family and has pride in his family name.
Fortunato- A wine lover who has been causing harm to the narrator. Unaware of what the narrator is up to and under the impression that both of them are friends.Rlync3 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For a story that has two characters? Seems unnecessary, and these kinds of sections always invite WP:OR and other uncited analysis. I'm going to remove it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character section 

message: Adding section with examples of poe using the burial while alive in other works
Burial while alive in other Poe works
"The Fall of the House of Usher"
"The Premature Burial"
"The Black Cat"
"Berenice"Rlync3 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial while alive in Poe's other works 

message: The word "boot" appears three times in reference to the Montresors coat of arms within a few sentences in the Analysis section ("It is with this converging of the two characters that one is able to see the larger symbolism of the Montresor crest – the boot steps on the serpent while the serpent forever has his fangs imbedded in the boot heel. Upon further investigation into the true nature of character, double meaning can be derived from the Montresor crest. It is the position of Montresor to view himself as the owner of the righteous boot that is crushing the insolent Fortunato serpent and his "thousand injuries" that progress into insult.") 
However, in the story (and in the plot synopsis on the page) it is clearly described as a human foot, not a boot, twice ("A huge human foot d’or, in a field azure; the foot crushes a serpent rampant whose fangs are imbedded in the heel."). Indeed, the word "boot" is not even used in the entire story.
There is a very big difference between a boot and a foot. However, I have not looked at the sources used in that section as I do not have access to the sites/books used, and if they say boot I suppose it should be kept to accurately reflect the source. But seeing as how Poe uses "foot", the sources should be checked to make sure that they don't use the correct word of "foot". If they do, it should be changed. 82.203.24.1 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was an easy change, regardless of the words of the original source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boot? 

message: The motto of family Montresor,"Nemo me impune lacessit", is the traditional motto of Scotland. Except for an "r" "Montresor" is an anagram of "Montrose". This was the noble title of the scottish house Graham. The then lord Montrose did as conservative minister of interior persecute the exiled italian patriot Mazzini in Poes days. That made "to grahamize"= opening others post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.216.242 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like some intriguing original research. However, not relevant to this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montresor = Montrose.? 

message: The article currently uses both "Luchesi" (in the plot summary) and "Luchresi" (in the adaptations section).  Quoting from wikisource's talk page:
The distinction is shown in the Poe Society comparative text page, but they don't elaborate on it.  I'm not sure if this is a good enough source, but I do think this should at least be mentioned in the article (probably as a footnote on the first use, or maybe in the "publication history" section). --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Luchesi" vs "Luchresi"