Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
First Citizen: Before we proceed any further, hear me speak. All: Speak, speak. First Citizen: You are all resolved rather to die than to famish? All: Resolved. resolved. First Citizen: First, you know NAME_1 is chief enemy to the people. All: We know't, we know't. First Citizen: Let us kill him, and we'll have corn at our own price. Is't a verdict? All: No more talking on't; let it be done: away, away! Second Citizen: One word, good citizens. First Citizen: We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians good. What authority surfeits on would relieve us: if they would yield us but the superfluity, while it were wholesome, we might guess they relieved us humanely; but they think we are too dear: the leanness that afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an inventory to particularise their abundance; our sufferance is a gain to them Let us revenge this with our pikes, ere we become rakes: for the gods know I speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge. Second Citizen: Would you proceed

Summary:
1. The citizens discuss their grievances and contemplate targeting NAME_1, their central nemesis.
2. Menenius NAME_2 intervenes, urging them not to battle against the Roman state and suggesting their problems spring from the gods, not the patricians.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No