Talk:Ghost (Hamlet)

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. Remember editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct and please also read WP:NOTTRUTH Thank you.-Kishfan (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: For the third time: 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) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, sure I am always there to help you understanding the policies. Please read impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking, Harassment and assuming good faith. Rest you can leave message at help desk for further learning. Let me know if you have more queries. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: For the fourth time: 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. 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)

Xover, You really are that ignorant? Really? Telling you for the fifth time that you are suppose to provide references for every claim you made in the article. And if you want to remove the tag, go a head. You have already been warned for edit warring.-Kishfan (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: Well, at least that can stand in for a policy-based argument if you squint and try really really hard to see it. With a lot of good will, I take it your argument is based on WP:V and boils down to "Somewhere in there there's at least one statement that is not cited". The counter-argument is that the {{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)

Hey Xover.. Man you never rest. This article has serious issues. I think this article is in a dire need of rewriting and more references. Just relax and let it go man. I will try to find more sources. Kishfan, you should also leave this conversation. Template of extra citations is OK but Xover is not in a listening mood.103.255.7.48 (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree the article is in need of improvement. What text is there needs to be copy-edited and expanded, and there are many relevant aspects that are not covered in the current article. It is, in Wikipedia parlance, a Start-class article. However, the one aspect that is not in particularly bad shape is the referencing. The vast majority of claims in the article are covered by a citation, and the cited sources are of acceptable quality.
PS. If you edit while logged in it makes conversations like this much easier to conduct. --Xover (talk) 08:52, 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)

@Kishfan: I'll give you half a point because WP:OWN is, indeed, a policy. But only half of one because you failed to take onboard the other part of my point: it can't be just any random policy. You actually need to find some policy justification for why the citations currently in the article are problematic and then construct a legible argument based on that. WP:V is a good start, but you need to explain which part of it you think applies here, and make some kind of argument as to why that part justifies inserting a {{refimprove}} tag.
PS. I appreciate that you logged in to edit. If you could also try to maintain proper threading that would be very helpful for keeping track of the discussion. It's getting kind of hard to follow with the random indentation. Thanks. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, now I honestly think that you are getting some sick pleasure out of it. You are either confused about the policy of reliable sources or you simply do not want to understand. I think you must calm down and search for some more references if at all you want this template to be removed else start reading and understanding the above mentioned basic policies. I do not see this discussion going anywhere because you appear desperate for not reaching to any sort of consensus. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: Ok, and now we're back to unfounded accusations again. And here I thought we were making some kind of progress. Oh well.

I have repeatedly (five times? six?) asked you to engage with the issue and provide some kind of policy-based argument. So far all that you have provided are personal attacks, transparent attempts at deflection, and a long litany of plainly unfounded accusations of various policy violations. If you do not engage with the actual topic at hand with some kind of policy-based argument—or, at the very minimum, an explanation of what your concern with the article's sourcing is—I am going to remove the tag again.

If you then restore it without engaging in constructive discussion I am going to refer the issue to the edit-warring noticeboard. If you keep making unfounded accusations and personal attacks—and that includes further unwarranted user warning templates on my talk page—I am going to request intervention from administrators at the administrators noticeboard. Your insistence on placing the tag without engaging in discussion about it constitutes edit-warring, which is sanctionable behaviour all on its own. Unwillingness to engage in discussion, unfounded accusations of policy-violations, name-calling, personal attacks, deflection as a general rethorical strategy, and attempts to intimidate (transparent and ineffective though they were) are all disruptive behaviour and sanctionable.

If you really want to try your luck with those tactics with a wider audience, and in front of a group of administrators that deal with that kind of thing on a daily basis, you're quite welcome to, but I really don't recommend it. Your alternative, and my very strong recommendation, is that you actually engage in a constructive and policy-based discussion of your concerns here. --Xover (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, Oh dear now you resort to below belt tactics of personal attacks. please read harassment and assuming good faith in order to educate your self on the subject. If you want to report me, go a head, what you are waiting for? But you can't remove this tag till the time you don't provide some reliable citations. You have actually gone to childish ways. Please think and act like a grown up and you can't remove any template simply because you want to do it. You are trying to hide behind quoting a number of policies and continuously harassing me for good and constructive edits. Remember, Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: Ok, since you plainly refuse to provide any kind of policy-based justification for the addition of the maintenance tag, in spite of my repeated requests that you do so, I have removed it from the article. Please do not restore it without providing a policy-based rationale and addressing the points I raised above. Also, please refrain from making further unfounded accusations and personal attacks. It is considered sanctionable behaviour and persisting in such may get you blocked from editing (and as I've now warned you about that several times you can't exactly claim ignorance of the rules). --Xover (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover.. You must have gone insane.. I am restoring the tag.. You are continuously harassing other users.43.245.9.100 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, since you are not ready to resolve the issue and continuously engaging in disruptive editing and edit war, you are about to be reported at edit-warring. You are negating all the policy based arguments and not only removing templates placed by me but you are also harassing and removing other editor's tags also. So you have to seriously reconsider your abusive behavior and do not bite newcomers as per WP:DONOTBITE otherwise you might face a block soon. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: Oh, excellent. I was just writing this up for WP:ANI, but since you're already bringing scrutiny to the situation I'll save myself the trouble. Do let me know how that works out for you. --Xover (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and since I see from your rather random links above that you're having trouble figuring out where the noticeboards are, please let me know if you need any help. The edit-warring notice board is at WP:EWN, and the administrators noticeboard is at WP:ANI. Both of them include instructions for how to report new issues. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, oh really? Please read my above text again and get it translate also if anything you do not understand. I repeat please violate the 3RR rule and I am just waiting for you to do that since you have some serious behavioral issues. Told you to calm down and read civil community to educate your self more on the subject. Please do not behave in this way and also read disruptive behaviour. I am still waiting for your another personal attack if it gives you pleasure. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: Do I then take it you would prefer I write it up for ANI? Not that I particularly enjoy that kind of thing, but since you have made clear we will not make any progress here I feel it is now the only avenue to resolve the situation. --Xover (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Xover, sure why not but I think you are just beating about the bush. And you did not reply me regarding your harassing behavior towards newcomers. Did you read WP:DONOTBITE? Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been editing WP for almost a year, you're not exacly a newcomer. And please see WP:INDENT Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: you must bother to read the full conversation before jumping in. I am talking about the Ip user who placed another template. Just slow down, you seem to be in hurry.-Kishfan (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. That IP may or may not be a new editor, newcomers don't bother with templates that often. But still, WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE I don't see any glaring sourcing issues in this article. The Overview section is a partial description of the plot, what is the problem? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"However, due to his over-analytical mind and the complexity of the ghost's conditions," seems more analytical than descriptive though. Things like that need sourcing or rewriting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I agree. And I don't think you should fret much about just plain removing any such instances that you find if they aren't easily fixable (that the article isn't bad does in no way imply that it's actually good). I also have access to most of the relevant journals (and some books) if you need me to check anything. Thanks for giving the article some TLC! I'd offer to help, but I'm busy with other projects just now and, frankly, fairly unmotived to put in much effort in working on this article at the moment (I'll get over it). --Xover (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Oh, incidentally, the "essential to the plot" quote is Miriam Joseph's opinion (it's the very first sentence of the article; you can see it in the preview on JSTOR). I don't know who Joseph is, so their authority on the matter is uncertain. It is, however, not inaccurate to say that the Ghost is pivotal: even those that think it a figment of Hamlet's imagination spend a lot of effort arguing about what that means for the plot. Without having looked into that in particular, I can't recall anyone quietly ignoring or actively arguing the insignificance of the Ghost in relevant articles. My suggestion short term would be to simply attribute it ("According to Miriam Joseph, ") and leave it. I'd need to read the whole article to see if they actually make that argument, or perhaps even cite enough sources that we could drop the quote and just write it in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. as accepted fact). --Xover (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like accepted fact to me, so in WP:s voice with a good cite would be my choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sister Miriam Joseph, probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't read it, but The Importance of the Ghost in Hamlet (Classic Reprint) might be good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's a title-squatting cheap reprint of The Importance of The Ghost in Hamlet (1910) by William Strunk Jr. (yes, that William Strunk!). It's available to read on Wikisource: The Importance of The Ghost in Hamlet. --Xover (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps not that helpful for this particular point, but I sofar only skimmed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 3 September 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)

I've read (and renamed) this section, and it seems ok (but of course improvable) to me. This sentence could perhaps be made more plain-language:

"Seeing the Ghost arrayed in a military aspect, and aware that the Norwegian crown prince Fortinbras is marshalling his forces on the frontier, Horatio recognises that the appearance of the Ghost must portend something regarding matters of state." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This article or section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction.

I don't see this in the article, can someone explain? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree - I don't see any blurring between fact and fiction, it makes it very clear that this is a character in a play, even mentioning how he is referred to in the stage directions. I was going to remove that tag myself, but since this has gone to ANI I didn't want to get caught up in any edit warring. The article needs a bit of work on the text, but I don't see the need for the citation tag at the top of the page - specific tags for any worrisome assertions ought to be sufficient.GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I see the ANI case is closed. That makes me feel bolder - I've removed the tags.GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick one. And thanks for your edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ghost One

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)

Essential to the plot

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)

I could go with "The Ghost is an important part of the plot." without a cite for now, per WP:BLUESKY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Added another source that generally agreed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)