![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think that Shakespeare ever says that the ghost is in fact the former King Hamlet. Anyone see something I missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecase610 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:
at the start indents a line, ::
indents it further, and so forth). It's important for keeping track of who is replying to who. A bit tedious compared to some other systems, I know, but it's what we have. I've fixed the indentation of your messages above for illustration purposes. See
Help:Talk for details. --
Xover (
talk)
06:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)@ Xover Thanks for all the tips. I'm still a relative novice in the big world of Wikipedia. O Murr ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The Overview has serious factual problems. 1) The time is explicit in the dialogue, and it is 1 a.m., not "midnight." 2) The Ghost does not "strike terror" into Gertrude's heart, since she can't see him. 3) This statement, "all that is known is that it is night" is obviously wrong, since it's known to be after midnight. 4) Then, Francisco is not there when Barnardo et al see the Ghost. 5) It's explicit in the dialogue that the men have partisans, not swords. 6) It is only hinted the Ghost may be in purgatory, that is not a fact in the play. 7) Mention of the Catholic Church is wrong, since the Church of England had similar practices at the time, and other Protestant churches may have also. 8) Hamlet does not talk to Gertrude in her "bedroom," the room is her "closet," but a bedroom would have been called a "chamber." The room is Gertrude's parlor/sitting room (despite what one might see in some movies.) 9) The "nightgown" needs footnoted, or explained, since that's only in Q1. 10) Nor is it stated in the play that Fortinbras Sr was the King of Norway, that idea is only the opinion of some interpreters. In sum, it's a very bad overview, with lots of problems. 68.118.52.34 ( talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No one has discussed this for about a year, but it has been brought up. King Hamlet is not a correct way to refer to the Ghost of Hamlet's Father, either with reference to the dramatis personae or the text of the play itself. I think the article should be titled Ghost (Hamlet.) Lo, i am real 23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across the image of Irving's prompt-book, which I thought would make an interesting addition to the article. I was surprised to find there was no image of the ghost in the article when I arrived, so I added one from the commons. If memory serves, it's an illustration from a Shakespeare Collected Works, showing the actor Thomas Betterton as Hamlet, but I might be wrong about that. I went ahead and said it was, so please correct if I'm mistaken. The Irving picture suggests that it might be appropriate to expand the article at some point with a section on the various technical innovations that have been employed historically in the theatre and cinema to depict the ghost. • DP • {huh?} 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding
Kishfan's
addition of a {{
refimprove}}
tag (using
Twinkle, without an edit summary); my
revert with the edit summary Nope, the refs are fine as they are. If you have specific concerns, please either tag them individually or bring them up on the talk page.
; and Kishfan's
re-revert with the edit summary Needs more citations. If you have any issue, discuss it on talk page
.
First, per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, once you've been reverted and asked to discuss the proposed change on the talk page, further reverts are usually considered edit warring (except in some limited circumstances).
Second, the sourcing for the article as a whole looks just fine. Most things are cited, and the sources cited are reliable (scholarly articles in
PMLA and
Modern Language Review; an edition of the play; a university-run website; a published collection of essays on the play; etc.). The only exception is the section that discusses the character's role in the play (which has citations, but thinner ones), and such sections are implicitly cited to the work itself (cf. plot summaries and synopses). In other words, the article as such has perfectly fine sourcing for what it is. I am therefore going to remove the {{
refimprove}}
tag again.
If you have specific concerns with specific citations, or with specific claims which are not currently cited, please address those with specific and actionable maintenance tags (or, even better, explain your concerns here) rather than clicking the big automated Twinkle button to add a general maintenance tag with no information or explanation of what your concern is. -- Xover ( talk) 09:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. --
Xover (
talk)
19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. --
Xover (
talk)
19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. If you cannot or will not provide such, the tag will just be removed again. Listing random essays and guideline pages does not constitute a policy-based argument. --
Xover (
talk)
20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is for articles where the article overall has significant deficiencies in sourcing. As I explained in my first message above, that is not the case here. The vast majority of the article is cited to
reliable sources. {{
refimprove}}
is thus inappropriate here. I'm sure there are weaknesses in sourcing in there, but those need to be tagged individually (with {{
cn}}
, {{
bcn}}
, {{
fv}}
, etc. as appropriate). And, no, you can't just hit the big automated
Twinkle button once and be done: you do need to put in the effort to evaluate and correctly tag each instance. "
I don't like it" is not a policy-based rationale. --
Xover (
talk)
06:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Xover, you don't own Wikipedia and it's articles. Please see WP:OWNERSHIP. So it's not about liking. Just take some time off to get your self acquainted with basic policies.- Kishfan ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
tag.[ misplaced comment moved here and given its own heading. -- Xover ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC) ]
I think article needs more references as it appears to be a plot summery. Can some one also add another template for this?. 43.245.9.29 ( talk) 13:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this in the article, can someone explain? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Xover (or anyone interested), if you know about some other sourceable hypothesis about who originally played the Ghost, that could be interesting to add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the issue discussed above, about the "essential to the plot" quote in the article.
I've read through the cite and it boils down to arguing that Shakespeare in Hamlet exhibits familiarity with, and deliberately follows, Acquinas' thesis about ghosts and a three point list of tests to detrmine whether they are good (sent by God) or evil. It's a good discussion on its own, and incidentally gives a good overview of the Ghost's relevance to the question of whether the play exhibits Catholic, Protestant, or just supernatural perspective. The article's lens is fundamentally theological. That is, apart from the article's first sentence, we cannot really say it discusses or argues about the Ghost's significance to the plot.
I am also not familiar with Sister Miriam Joseph, which means she isn't routinely cited in the sources I've read, which in turn means I cannot justify stating this as fact based on her brief assertion.
It is, I believe, pretty universally held; but we may have trouble sourcing it because modern scholars tend to shy away from this sort of analysis, and avoid directly addressing such questions. There are a couple of obvious source that may address it, or help support it, so I'll try to have dig in those when time allows. -- Xover ( talk) 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think that Shakespeare ever says that the ghost is in fact the former King Hamlet. Anyone see something I missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecase610 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:
at the start indents a line, ::
indents it further, and so forth). It's important for keeping track of who is replying to who. A bit tedious compared to some other systems, I know, but it's what we have. I've fixed the indentation of your messages above for illustration purposes. See
Help:Talk for details. --
Xover (
talk)
06:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)@ Xover Thanks for all the tips. I'm still a relative novice in the big world of Wikipedia. O Murr ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The Overview has serious factual problems. 1) The time is explicit in the dialogue, and it is 1 a.m., not "midnight." 2) The Ghost does not "strike terror" into Gertrude's heart, since she can't see him. 3) This statement, "all that is known is that it is night" is obviously wrong, since it's known to be after midnight. 4) Then, Francisco is not there when Barnardo et al see the Ghost. 5) It's explicit in the dialogue that the men have partisans, not swords. 6) It is only hinted the Ghost may be in purgatory, that is not a fact in the play. 7) Mention of the Catholic Church is wrong, since the Church of England had similar practices at the time, and other Protestant churches may have also. 8) Hamlet does not talk to Gertrude in her "bedroom," the room is her "closet," but a bedroom would have been called a "chamber." The room is Gertrude's parlor/sitting room (despite what one might see in some movies.) 9) The "nightgown" needs footnoted, or explained, since that's only in Q1. 10) Nor is it stated in the play that Fortinbras Sr was the King of Norway, that idea is only the opinion of some interpreters. In sum, it's a very bad overview, with lots of problems. 68.118.52.34 ( talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No one has discussed this for about a year, but it has been brought up. King Hamlet is not a correct way to refer to the Ghost of Hamlet's Father, either with reference to the dramatis personae or the text of the play itself. I think the article should be titled Ghost (Hamlet.) Lo, i am real 23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across the image of Irving's prompt-book, which I thought would make an interesting addition to the article. I was surprised to find there was no image of the ghost in the article when I arrived, so I added one from the commons. If memory serves, it's an illustration from a Shakespeare Collected Works, showing the actor Thomas Betterton as Hamlet, but I might be wrong about that. I went ahead and said it was, so please correct if I'm mistaken. The Irving picture suggests that it might be appropriate to expand the article at some point with a section on the various technical innovations that have been employed historically in the theatre and cinema to depict the ghost. • DP • {huh?} 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding
Kishfan's
addition of a {{
refimprove}}
tag (using
Twinkle, without an edit summary); my
revert with the edit summary Nope, the refs are fine as they are. If you have specific concerns, please either tag them individually or bring them up on the talk page.
; and Kishfan's
re-revert with the edit summary Needs more citations. If you have any issue, discuss it on talk page
.
First, per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, once you've been reverted and asked to discuss the proposed change on the talk page, further reverts are usually considered edit warring (except in some limited circumstances).
Second, the sourcing for the article as a whole looks just fine. Most things are cited, and the sources cited are reliable (scholarly articles in
PMLA and
Modern Language Review; an edition of the play; a university-run website; a published collection of essays on the play; etc.). The only exception is the section that discusses the character's role in the play (which has citations, but thinner ones), and such sections are implicitly cited to the work itself (cf. plot summaries and synopses). In other words, the article as such has perfectly fine sourcing for what it is. I am therefore going to remove the {{
refimprove}}
tag again.
If you have specific concerns with specific citations, or with specific claims which are not currently cited, please address those with specific and actionable maintenance tags (or, even better, explain your concerns here) rather than clicking the big automated Twinkle button to add a general maintenance tag with no information or explanation of what your concern is. -- Xover ( talk) 09:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. --
Xover (
talk)
19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. --
Xover (
talk)
19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is needed, or, at a minimum, explain what your concern with the article's sourcing is. If you cannot or will not provide such, the tag will just be removed again. Listing random essays and guideline pages does not constitute a policy-based argument. --
Xover (
talk)
20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC){{
refimprove}}
tag is for articles where the article overall has significant deficiencies in sourcing. As I explained in my first message above, that is not the case here. The vast majority of the article is cited to
reliable sources. {{
refimprove}}
is thus inappropriate here. I'm sure there are weaknesses in sourcing in there, but those need to be tagged individually (with {{
cn}}
, {{
bcn}}
, {{
fv}}
, etc. as appropriate). And, no, you can't just hit the big automated
Twinkle button once and be done: you do need to put in the effort to evaluate and correctly tag each instance. "
I don't like it" is not a policy-based rationale. --
Xover (
talk)
06:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Xover, you don't own Wikipedia and it's articles. Please see WP:OWNERSHIP. So it's not about liking. Just take some time off to get your self acquainted with basic policies.- Kishfan ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
tag.[ misplaced comment moved here and given its own heading. -- Xover ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC) ]
I think article needs more references as it appears to be a plot summery. Can some one also add another template for this?. 43.245.9.29 ( talk) 13:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this in the article, can someone explain? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Xover (or anyone interested), if you know about some other sourceable hypothesis about who originally played the Ghost, that could be interesting to add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the issue discussed above, about the "essential to the plot" quote in the article.
I've read through the cite and it boils down to arguing that Shakespeare in Hamlet exhibits familiarity with, and deliberately follows, Acquinas' thesis about ghosts and a three point list of tests to detrmine whether they are good (sent by God) or evil. It's a good discussion on its own, and incidentally gives a good overview of the Ghost's relevance to the question of whether the play exhibits Catholic, Protestant, or just supernatural perspective. The article's lens is fundamentally theological. That is, apart from the article's first sentence, we cannot really say it discusses or argues about the Ghost's significance to the plot.
I am also not familiar with Sister Miriam Joseph, which means she isn't routinely cited in the sources I've read, which in turn means I cannot justify stating this as fact based on her brief assertion.
It is, I believe, pretty universally held; but we may have trouble sourcing it because modern scholars tend to shy away from this sort of analysis, and avoid directly addressing such questions. There are a couple of obvious source that may address it, or help support it, so I'll try to have dig in those when time allows. -- Xover ( talk) 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)