Talk:Ghost (Hamlet): Difference between revisions

Ghost's identity

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)

It's correct that Shakespeare left the Ghost's identity ambiguous. The article departs greatly from the play by treating it as a fact. 68.118.52.34 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ghost tells Hamlet: "I am thy father's spirit..." Who was Hamlet's father? He's referred to elsewhere as 'old King Hamlet'. Did Shakespeare have to spell out everything, as if he was writing for five-year-olds? O Murr (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't edit my previous reply. By 'old King Hamlet' I wasn't quoting directly from the play text. There are two references in the text to "young Hamlet'", the first by Horatio, the second by the First Gravedigger. If there was a young Hamlet there must also have been an old Hamlet. Who could he have been? Horatio has been discussing the "king that's dead", the Gravedigger has been discussing "our last king, Hamlet". Go figure. O Murr (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@O Murr: And perhaps more to the point here, all the reliable sources treat it as fact so it would be original research for us to say anything else. The play itself is a primary source and must be filtered through secondary sources like critical editions like The Arden Shakespeare or The Oxford Shakespeare.

PS. You should be able to edit everything on the talk page just as on the article, including your previous reply (although it is sometimes preferable to make additional thoughts in a new message as you have done here).

PPS. It's a good idea to put some effort into getting indentation in discussion threads right (: 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, problems

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)

Changing Article Name

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)

Images and technical representation

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)

Having left this note, I then remembered I'd seen the image in Brockett and Hildy, so have corrected the caption. It may well be Betterton, but Brockett doesn't say so.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Article sourcing

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)

Xover, you are clearly engaged in edit war because you can not just remove the citation template from the article. If you are a fan, please feel free to open a fan site but you can not remove the tags until and unless the issue is addressed. You must provide reliable sources for the claims you have included. Now please do not remove tag and provide references otherwise I have to report you for edit warring.Kishfan (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: The edit-warring noticeboard is right there; and the reliable sources noticeboard too. I really rather encourage you to make use of them. Until then I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks.
Meanwhile, please provide some kind of policy-based argument for why the {{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)

Xover, instead of wasting your energies for baseless arguments and harassments, why don't you resort to a little positive behavior and try to find out more references? I strongly recommend you must assume good faith and please read about basic policies of Wikipedia so that you can differentiate between a fan site and a well sourced article. Thank you.-Kishfan (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Excessive plot summary

[ 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 agree that the "Overview" section is a bit excessive as the article stands. However, the article can, and should, be expanded; at which point the length of the "Overview" section would again be balanced (see WP:PRESERVE). While somewhat ill organized and bordering on original research in places, it's not a particularly bad summation of the Ghost's role in the play. It needs improvement, not pruning. --Xover (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)