Talk:Hamlet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Spoiler warning

Shouldn't this have a spoiler warning? I mean, even though Hamlet's pretty popular, we can't assume everyone has read it, so there should be a spoiler warning before giving away the ending. Keenanpepper 00:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct sir. Has been added below the "Main Characters" header. Ellsworth 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warning is gone again St.Awesome 17:51, 21 August 2006

I've seen increasingly that discussions are resulting in deletion of spoiler warnings in articles with fairly wide support. I, personally, think they should stay but from what I've seen I'm in the minority. Marty Donakowski 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

How about adding a "famous quotes" section?

• To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler . . ."
• Dead for a ducat! (killing his girlfriend's father behind the arras)
• greater things than you have dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio
• May I lie in your lap? . . . I meant country matters (you are merry, my lord)

etc.

It might help if these famous quotations were accurate! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in (y)our philosophy.

--- Agreed. The line is "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt (not dreamed as the previous poster had it*) of in (y)our philosophy."

However, give the guy credit. I could see an issue though.. there being so many famous lines.. we could have a whole article on "To be or not to be".

• it could be dreamed as we pronounce it today, but not dream-ed with the stress on Ed. I know no edition that uses this variation, you are welcome to point it out to me.

Good comparative editions include Folger's and Arden's. I only own the Folger's at present.

Please see Wikiquote - we are trying to make a list of accurate quotations there, rather than have them all in the Wikipedia itself. Not just for Hamlet but for everything and everybody. Come and join us.

It was Polonius killed behind the arras not Ophelia! 172.143.18.148 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence, I guess, the phrase, "his girlfriend's father". Paul B 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Avenge and Revenge

I edited the article according to the usage rule "avenge only the victims, revenge only the harms" (which i continue to advocate). However, i find that my M-W Collegiate ca. 1970 is outside the current consensus in supporting me as strongly as it does. I'm thus not imitating that edit elsewhere (unless i'm editing something else in the same section for some other reason), and anyone who said "Huh, who says so?" on reading my edit-Summary was IMO justified. --Jerzy 17:02, 2003 Oct 17 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right and I was wrong, so you won't see any reverts from me. Dandrake 19:17, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

[Big grin] Tnx for saying so. --Jerzy 19:50, 2003 Oct 17 (UTC)

---

"then waxes philosophical on why people choose to live on despite the hardships of life." Am I missing something, or is this bad grammar? Shouldn't we say "philosophically"?

No, one should interpret "waxes" as "becomes". Or becomes while declaiming. Anyway, the idiom takes an adjective. If I try to imagine waxing philosophically, I think of the monk whose job is to polish the invisible statue of Buddha. Dandrake 18:13, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Editing Hamlet

Not complaining bitterly, but just wondering about some edits you make to my Hamlet additions. I agree with some removes (just purple prose - forgive me, I am not Shakespeare) -- but why the removal of the end sentence (ought to be rephrased maybe but important, at least as a concluding statement; otherwise the section sounds clipped) and the beginning phrase "the Dane"? You clipped the "shedding additional light..." after "all their own special insights", missing the point (probably through my English), that each critic adds on and augments to a more complete understanding of the character. After deleting it, the point of the sentence is lost.

PS You can come to my talk page to discuss if it's better. Mandel - May 12, 2004.

The last sentence I think is not NPOV- there are plenty of philistines like me who think Hamlet's an overrated, two-dimensional character. If you could attribute the statement to a specific critic or actor, I'd have no problem though, or I'd have no objection to another concluding sentence.

"shedding additional light" seems to me to mean the same as "all with their own special insights"- the point is already made that they are saying different, but often compatible things.

"the Dane"- we've already that he's Danish several times, so I don't think we need to repeat it. In any case, I don't think it's relevant to his character, specifically. Markalexander100 01:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised: Hamlet, two-dimensional? Everyone has his own opinion, but I think to a certain extent a commentary has to be an appreciation; you can't write extensively, esp in literature, about something you don't enjoy. There are many books which I think overrated, but if a section of an Wikipedia entry draws euphoric comments, I won't be the first person to excise them; I may simply be lukewarm about it, but it could be relevant. The statement isn't that non-NPOV you know; why, for instance, are there more written about his psychology than many others who actually lived is a point to note. If this doesn't point to the fact that critics treat Hamlet like a real person with inner motivations etc, I don't know what it is. It's pretty similar to what I say.

The important word in the second para is "additional", meaning each view adds on, augments and enlarges to a more complete understanding of Hamlet. It is strictly not being the same. Merely "own special insights" gives one the idea that each opinion is mutually exclusive and incompatible; in fact, some of them are built on previous criticisms.

"The Dane" is important (at least to me) in that we're talking about Hamlet as a person (not as the play), calling him the Dane is not factual but draws attention to him as a character. Hamlet refers to himself as the Dane in the play before; it has symbolic reveberations in the play. For variety's sake, I can't keep saying "Hamlet as a character" all the time.

Seriously I've no complaints about removing the purple prose, but the standing version seems garbled. My purpose of adding the para is to draw people to add more, clarify the points through edits, but an axed version which leaves out the conclusive points does make the entry more difficult for others to understand. Mandel

On Hamlet as a real person, I don't mind mentioning that many critics treat him as a real person- that's a fact. I do mind us saying that he's like a real person- that's a POV. Give me a quote from a critics saying he's like a real person and I'd be happy.

additional- how about "have written articles on him, each adding his own special insights"?

Hamlet is possibly the most discussed and contentious character seems pretty unambiguous to me- no-one will think that we mean the play there!

Markalexander100 01:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

All literary criticism is subjective. Bradley probably thinks as much about Hamlet that you or I disagree with; but he's famous, so his words are liable to carry more weight. A survey of historical criticism ought to be NPOV, but for criticism so long as a critic substantiates what he says from the literary text, and makes sense, he's entitled to his individual POV. Which brings to question whether Wikipedia allows criticism, or merely surveys of criticism, in the main. I think saying something radical about a literary work is alright, so long as you give evidence about it from the text and is not unduly wayward.

"Give me a quote from a critic saying he's like a real person and I'd be happy." -- I think there're, though I can't find it (not well read enough).

Finally...yes, I didn't do enough homework...forgive me...

It'll be good if you (or anyone else) add something to the article. Seriously I'm already beginning to sound too old. - :)Mandel

Not at all!

Surveys of criticism are fine, but not original research. I agree that some critics must have said he's like a real person, and I'd be happy to see them quoted if we can track them down. Markalexander100 02:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Just as an afterthought. I'm not sure if I wholly agree with the author on the abovementioned policy esp with regards to literature. If the literary text is considered a primary source, shouldn't criticism be taken as a secondary source? I've seen encyclopedias - even Britannica - adding what can be taken as criticism to literary entries. But I agree it must be used discretely, or else the encyclopedia's tone will sound strange and disjointed. - Mandel 17:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I remember, but I must admit I'm a philistine and that I've never seen the 'real' version, that Horatio wants to commit suicide at the end of the play but Hamlet stops him and tells him to pass on this story. If this is so it should be added to the text. --Dyss 22:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while since anyone commented this page...anyway what you recommended has been done. Ellsworth 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be or not to be

I have heard from a person I trust that the line "To be or not to be" is the most recognizable phrase in the English language. Before that amusing tidbit gets added to the page, is there anyone who can confirm or deny it? --Reediewes 21:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to know the method behingd the analysis taht led to such an assertion—which I guess to be anecdotal.—Theo (Talk) 23:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article, there's this sentence:

"Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy (Act Three, Scene One), the most popular passage of the play, is so well known that it has become a stumbling-block for many modern actors."

I found this ambiguous - how does the passage being well known create a stumbling-block for modern actors? This should either be explained or removed... --Oracleoftruth 18:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why won't anyone explain it?67.67.120.228 03:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The line is difficult to deliver because it is so famous and well-known that the actor may be somewhat awed or embarrased at being the one to deliver the line. The actor may not feel "worthy" to deliver the line and in his or her anxiety may be more likely to flub it. Some actors are also intimidated by the fact that the second part of the line will doubtless be mouthed or whispered by a large part of the audience as they of course will recognize it. Some guy 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also very nervewracking because of the huge number of possible interpreations of "To be or not to be" whatever interpretation you take whilst performing or as a director, there will be someone, an actor or an audience member, who will disagree wholeheartedly, two contradictory interpretations for examples are the 'suicide' theme of the speech opposed to the 'I've just had sex with Ophelia' interpretation (it exists!). Although I agree totally with the whispering along, so distracting. An actor 195.195.14.1 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishmonger

Though it is not discussed here, at pimp and fishmonger it states that fishmonger in Skakespearian times was a euphemism for pimp. I did a little research and found that this is disputed.

From http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html:

Excellent well; you are a fishmonger" (2.2.174), says Hamlet, in response to Polonius' question, "Do you know me, my lord?" This is the first of a series of bitter jests that Hamlet directs at the uncomprehending Polonius. The basis of the jests is apparently Hamlet's intuition that Polonius forced Ophelia to dump him. In Hamlet's opinion, Polonius sacrificed his daughter's happiness in order to suck up to the King. Thus, "fishmonger" is often explained as slang for "pimp," despite the fact that there is no evidence that the word was used that way in Shakespeare's time. Hamlet then makes his insult sharper by wishing that Polonius were as honest as a fishmonger, which is to say that Polonius is lower than the lowest of the low. Hamlet goes on to say that "to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man pick'd out of ten thousand" and then says what Polonius probably thinks is a very crazy thing: "For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a god kissing carrion--Have you a daughter?" The comment about the sun and maggots has at least two possible meanings. One meaning is that it's not surprising that Polonius is such a hypocrite, because the life-giving sun can produce all kinds of disgusting things, especially from other disgusting things. The second meaning Hamlet explains, though not so Polonius can understand. When Polonius says that he does have a daughter, Hamlet replies, "Let her not walk i' the sun: conception is a blessing: but not as your daughter may conceive" (2.2.184-185). In other words, if Polonius is going to keep Ophelia away from Hamlet for fear that she'll get knocked up, he better keep her out of the sun, too, because even the sun can produce bastard pregnancies.

But there are other sites that support the fishmonger=pimp theory. From http://www.princehamlet.com/QA.html#3:

Why does Hamlet call Polonius a fishmonger, and why does he prattle on about Jephthah? (And who is Jephthah, anyway?)

From Chapter Three, “A Certain Convocation of Politic Worms.”

Polonius: Do you know me, my lord?

Hamlet: Excellent well, you are a fishmonger.

Polonius: Not I, my lord.

Hamlet: Then I would you were so honest a man.

“Fishmonger” is Elizabethan cant for “fleshmonger”–a pimp, procurer, or bawd. In Hamlet’s view, Polonius treats Ophelia as so much flesh for barter–and rightly so, given Polonius’ “I’ll loose my daughter to him” 2.2.175, as if she’s a mare for the breeding. But Polonius is even less honest than a bawd; he manipulates Ophelia for political capital, not just time-honored pecuniary reasons.

Later, in the scene when the players arrive, Hamlet confounds Polonius with his ramblings on Jephthah: 2.2.285

Hamlet: O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!

Polonius: What a treasure had he, my lord?

Hamlet: Why– “One fair daughter, and no more, The which he loved passing well.”

Polonius: Still on my daughter.

Hamlet: Am I not i’ th’ right, old Jephthah?

Polonius: If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I love passing well.

Hamlet: Nay, that follows not.

Polonius: What follows then, my lord?

Hamlet: Why– "As by lot, God wot," and then, you know, "It came to pass, as most like it was"– the first row of the pious chanson will show you more, for look where my abridgement comes.

Enter the players.

Hamlet’s reference is to a story in Judges 11 (in the Geneva Bible version), and to a then-current ballad on the subject (and to a recently performed play on the subject; see Appendix B). Jephthah promised the Lord that if he would give Jephthah victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah would offer up the first person to come out his front door as a burnt offering. His daughter and only child is the lucky winner. Before she’s sacrificed, though, she begs leave for, and receives, permission to spend two months in the mountains with her “companions” to bewail her eternal virginity. She gets herself to a nunnery. Then Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she had known no man.”

Hamlet is chiding Polonius for similarly sacrificing his own virgin daughter–barring her marriage and procreation (and ultimately sacrificing her life). And he is also jabbing an insult at Polonius (and commenting slantingly on his own situation): Jephthah was “the son of a harlot.” …

I think this will need to be reflected in the aforementioned articles and the quote should probably be aded to wikiquote if not also here. I'll do what I can.

Theshibboleth 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

who is shakespeare? it his identity well known or not? info about the auteur needed

The obvious allusion of Polonius as a fishmonger is sometimes overlooked. The person whose sold fish smelled. Polonius's covert actions are rank, including using his daughter Ophelia to engage Hamlet while he spies on them.

Source for number of translations

About this sentence:

Hamlet is one of the world's most famous literary works, and has been translated into every major living language.

Is this some kind of definition? I think we need a source for this. — Sverdrup 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Klingon

I don't understand this change. I think it is worthwhile to mention that Hamlet's appeal is such that someone efforted the likely-no-so-easy translation into Klingon.

- Eric 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why such efforting should be excluded, though whether translating into a made-up language is or is not likely-no-so-easy I can't say. Paul B 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It was me who co-efforted it, and I thought it was non-trivial work, anyway. :-) Opoudjis 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the 'sources' section to near the top of the page, since that's a more standard arrangement than to have this section late in the essay. 12.210.83.193 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish-born?

Where's the support for Polonius being Polish-born? Don't say the name, because that line of reasoning equally supports Claudius being Roman-born and Laertes being Greek-born. Ellsworth 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Even if there is something which supports the theory (surely not, but we'll see what replies we get here) it's hardly significant enough to be worth a mention in the sentence you removed it from. AndyJones 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

name of this wikipedia page

I fear that none of the readers discussing above the tragedy will join my reasoning, but I think the page of the play should not be named "Hamlet" (even if Hamlet) remains a redirect on it: There are many other things that are named "Hamlet", and the play is not named "Hamlet".

Please read on at Talk:Hamlet (disambiguation) if you are willing to do so... — MFH:Talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right, I completely disagree with you. "Hamlet" should point here with an {otheruses} tag or similar because most people searching for "Hamlet" want Shakespeare's play not Hamlet, Indiana, and not the brand of cigar, or whatever. Also I'm vigorously against trying to name Wikipedia articles for Shakespeare plays by their folio or quarto titles. I suppose you had in mind a rename to "Hamlet: Prince of Denmark" or similar, but that is only a slippery slope to ending up with "The most excellente and illustriouse comedy of..." type article names. I also couldn't agree less that "the play is not named Hamlet". At the date of writing wikipedia it is named Hamlet, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and I could go on like this for ages. AndyJones 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that in a place where you don't look for something else, people simply call it "Hamlet", like musicians say "Beethoven's fifth" instead of ...5th symphony. And all your links link to one and the same commercial website. Look at the google search for "tragedie of hamlet": here you see hundreds of links to serious websites about literature who call it like that. I don't plead for adding a whold subtitle to the wiki page name, but e.g. "tragedy of hamlet" seems to be more specific for the play. Why not having a 'hamlet' page where those who don't have time will just need a second click to find the play, and those with some more curiosity learn what else can "hamlet" mean? (I don't like "mass" arguments like "most people want..." - we don't either eat what trillions of flies eat, just because they are so many to prefer the same!) But well, I won't insist... — MFH:Talk 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ur-Hamlet

I reverted this edit, although my only source was wikipedia, which has the first date in Ur-Hamlet. I guess this may have been a mistake (it was done by an IP with only this one edit) but I'm raising it here in case anyone is able to check it. (If so, perhaps add the source to the article!) AndyJones 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You were right; I added the source of the reference to make things clearer. The Singing Badger 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet as a character

At some point in the last month, someone appears to have removed the entire "Hamlet as a character" section, whilst leaving an internal link pointing back to it. Could someone familiar with the page have a look at this? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've no time myself to look at this now, but I will add a quick comment: It's seemed to me, for a while, that the time had come to take that section out of this very long page to put it at Hamlet (character). Also, I'm starting to feel that Hamlet in cinema and TV is outgrowing this page and needs an article of its own, too. Any thoughts? AndyJones 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have made some minor style adjustments to the plot summary. Generally, I think it's still too long. There's an awful lot of narrating in the article generally - the character list and plot summary overlap and I get no sense of the play's language, structure or themes / concerns. Still, it's easy for me to say that without actually contributing any of that myself.. Maybe the two sections could be merged? Skalzey 16 April 2006

While I've only read Hamlet once, I am straining to find any references to his sister. The section here, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, states that he has one. One who, in fact, he will be estranged from if he kills his uncle because it will upset "their" mother. If I am reading it incorrectly, it seems much to easy to do so and the section should probably be a little more clear about whose sister it's referring to. - AMI - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.210.146 (talk • contribs)

This is the clumsy bit of text you're referring to:

"Mamoun claims that if Hamlet killed the king, his mother would become estranged from Hamlet, since she is the king's wife, and that God would become estranged from Hamlet, because Hamlet has committed murder and potentially suicide, and that his countrymen would become estranged from Hamlet because naturally they are inclined to reject assassins, and that his sister would also become estranged from him because this killing would upset their mother".

King Claudius refers to his wife, at one point, as his "sister" (an endearment, I hope!):

"Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,

"The imperial jointress to this warlike state....."

So the clumsy text is actually saying "and that his (King Claudius's) sister (wife) would also become estranged from him (Hamlet) because this killing would upset their mother (her; Gertrude)". OR......

...... It could be confusing things with Ophelia, who is Laertes' sister. Christ knows...... Gardener of Geda, 21:04, February 26, 2007 (forgot to sign last time. It's rare. Honest).

"Our sometime sister, now our queen" uses the royal "we", and uses sister (as Shakespeare commonly did) as an abbreviation for sister-in-law. It means "my former sister-in-law, who is now my queen." Does that help? AndyJones 14:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm ...... no. But thanks anyway. The "(an endearment, I hope!)" bit which preceded the quote was a light-hearted jape. Or at least an attempt at one, which obviously failed to be recognized as such in this instance. These things happen. Thanks again. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've now looked at the offending section and it is nonsense [sorry: perhaps that's a bit strong: it certainly contains some nonsense] and does indeed suggest (contrary to textual evidence) that Hamlet has a sister. Also, one critic's interpretation on such a widely-discussed issue shouldn't be granted so much prominence in an encylopedia entry. Besides, this section is a summary, so this type of thing should instead be at Prince Hamlet. I've removed it, and should be grateful for other views. I'm afraid I don't really have time to work out who inserted it, to invite him/her into the discussion. AndyJones 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The text of the actual Hamlet Paradigm Essay is below, as taken from the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup:

(I deleted it.) Where's the copyright permission to post that here? The author could post it, but do you have his permission?

Hamlet Films

Im sorry to crash in like this, but I can not find a reference to the Hamlet film adaptation from 2000, where the setting is modern but dialogue is in original form. reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/ Thank you. Also there is no reference to the Hamlet film starring Mel Gibsonm of 1990/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.149.198 (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia has pages for both, and several others. See Hamlet (1990 film), Hamlet (2000 film), and Shakespeare on screen#Hamlet which contains links to these and others. Also, this page itself has a section on Hamlet in cinema and tv here. AndyJones 16:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

'Films' that reference Hamlet

It's not quite accurate to call them 'films', because a lot of the references occur in television shows. Is there some better description than just "films" that we can use to describe the audio-visual works that reference Hamlet? Nuance13x 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good thinking. I've started reorganising here. AndyJones 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gertrude suicide

I reverted this: "Interpretations can vary on whether Gertrude intentionally killed herself to spare Hamlet or if she didn't know the wine was poisoned." Surely the first of these options must be a very minority view. It definitely shouldn't be here unsourced. Even if a critic has argued it, I doubt it should be in an encylopedia article without evidence of fairly widespread acceptance. A review of the literature would produce hundreds of cranky ideas about the play, which would swamp this article if we tried to cover them. (Or is this idea fairly widespread without me being aware of it?) Besides, in what way does her drinking "spare" Hamlet? And if that is her intention why doesn't she drink at 277 when Hamlet is first offered the cup? And while I'm here: if that's her motivation why would she need to drink poison herself? She could just spill the drink somewhere. "Oops, sorry Hamlet." Send a servant for a new one. AndyJones 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm, I will agree that we can't get caught up on interpretations, the view that Gertrude intentionally killed herself is far from a minority view, particularily among Feminist Literature. The book "Man and Wife Is One Flesh: Hamlet and the Confrontation with the Maternal Body." argues that Gertrude gave herself for her son. There is also a text "Realising Gertrude: The Suicide Option." that expresses Gertrudes intent (The title alone makes that apparent). Additionally, John Updike - a VERY prominent writer - has mentioned his belief of Gertrude's purpose. The reason for Gertrude's motivation to drink the wine is as a form of retribtuion for marrying the senior Hamlet's murderer, and thus the line "The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet". Additionally, this view is used in the Almereyda's Hamlet from 2000 and can be seen in this review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2000/05/19/AR2005062901726.html Marty Donakowski 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. My thoughts are:

1. My POV is that the suicide option is simply wrong and the accidental option clearly correct.
2. I haven't heard of the suicide option before today, but I find it very easy to reject: I don't want to get bogged down in a string of my textual objections here for fear of rambling. Besides, anything I wrote could no doubt be rebutted in some way by the people you quote above if they read it, and that is hardly the issue.
3. It is very rare for a reader or viewer of the play to conclude that Gertrude deliberately kills herself. Are there any pre-20th century sources which are based on this premise?
4. Contrary to what you say above, this is still a minority view. Two sources to the contrary do not change that. Having said that, they may imply a sufficient body of opinion to justify noting the view rather than excluding it from the article completely.
5. John Updike, yes, fair enough, although being a Shakespeare academic isn't exactly what he's famous for.
6. "The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet" has a clear primary meaning under the suicide and accidental theories. The fact that there's a potential double-meaning under the suicide theory doesn't carry much weight with me.
7. I've just checked out the relevant scene in Almereyda's Hamlet, and you are right: the premise is used there. Claudius walks towards Hamlet with the glass, Gertrude rushes in front to head him off at "Here, Hamlet, take my napkin", but realising this is futile she turns and drinks the cup, saying knowingly to Claudius "I pray you pardon me". Clearly she knows the cup is poison. How she might know this is not explained: is she a reluctant conspirator against Hamlet's life with Claudius and Laertes, or has she found out in some other way (how?)? Or is that another area of contention? In any event, this is the same scene in which - almost immediately after this moment - Laertes pulls out a handgun and shoots Hamlet. Almereyda at this point is not following Shakespeare's plot, he is vigorously reinterpreting it. It is impossible to accept the 2000 film as having any backwards authority on the question of what Shakespeare's plot was.
8. I think the furthest we could consider going with this is something along the lines of: "Gertrude drinks from Hamlet's cup, unaware that it is poisoned (although some critics have argued that this is a deliberate act of suicide {footnote})".
9. What do others think? AndyJones 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• That seems like a good way of expressing it, or perhaps we could simply say that Gertrude drank the poisoned wine and forgo the word "accidentally" altogether. Also, I'm surprised that there's controversy over this, since at my University we discussed in great depths that Shakespeare kept this ambiguous, but I appreciate other views on this.Marty Donakowski 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been doing some more research on this, and I'm still not persuaded it's anything more than one of the hundreds of quirky interpretations you hear every year at Shaksper. Of the sources you cite above, I cannot actually read Janet Adelman's "Man and Wife is One Flesh..." online, but if the best we have is something from the kind of Pseud's Corner candidate who can write that "Hamlet redefines the son’s position between two fathers by relocating it in relation to an indiscriminately sexual maternal body that threatens to annihilate the distinction between the fathers and hence problematizes the son’s paternal identification" then I am not terribly impressed. Perhaps I am being overly harsh in judging the author's argument by her writing style, and I confess that the review does not get so far as her assertion that Gertrude killed herself (or self-annihilated her corporeal entity, if you prefer). As for G. B Shand's "The Suicide Option", its review here suggests that it opens by describing the suicide theory as "an apparent subtextual subversion of the script". The author goes on to defend the theory, but the opening is a clear acknowledgement of what Shakespeare's script is widely accepted as meaning. In summary, I just cannot agree that your in-depth University discussions were terribly meaningful. From my perspective Shakespeare didn't keep anything ambiguous. He wrote a play in which Gertrude unknowingly swallowed the poison intended for Hamlet. He did not think to include a rebuttal to a small number of late twentieth century critics who would choose to misunderstand him. Anyway, having had my rant for the day, I have incorporated a comment into the article here. I won't revert that, but we'll see how other editors deal with it. AndyJones 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I have removed the word "accidently" from the description of Gertrude drinking the wine with an open invitation for other editors to change as they please. With that, I thank you for your criticism.Marty Donakowski 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

somehow hilarious anon edit

Can someone check if this anon edit is valid? This version sound a little more hilarious than the previous one, but not so much... Maybe one can check if the newly introduced "Gravedigger" does exist? — MFH:Talk 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Millais' famous portrait of Ophelia

• I reverted it. (See my edit summary here.) There are indeed two gravediggers in the play, and they do indeed talk about Ophelia's suicide. Actually Gertrude describes Ophelia as "one incapable of her own distress", which I interpret as meaning that her madness is so far gone that she is unaware that she has put herself in danger by being in the brook and failing to fight for her life. AndyJones 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'play' in the play

I'm unsure about the play in the Hamlet definition. I know the play is called "The Murder of Gonzago" but isn't it also called "The Mouse-Trap"?

The Murder of Gonzago is its proper name; Hamlet calls it The Mouse Trap when he introduces it to the courtiers; presumably he's trying to unsettle Claudius? Barney Jenkins 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Murder of Gonzago is indeed the title of the play-within-the-play as critics have come to call it; that is: the title of the pantomime, but Hamlet refers to it as The dumb show and The Mouse-trap since, to him:

"The play's the thing

Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." II,2,1680[1]

He obviously wants to trap Claudius through this means.

Wikinfo

In compliance with Wikipedia's "no original content" policy, I have moved the comments I previously posted here over to wikinfo: http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Motifs_in_Hamlet http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Fish_Motif http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Hamlet%27s_Silence_and_the_Voice_of_Denmark_Motif --Ray Eston Smith Jr 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bad Quarto

I bring this up not knowing if anyone is familiar with the theory I am about to mention, but here goes! In my edition of the Bad Quarto, the theory is advanced by Albert Weiner that it represents not a "corruption" but an intentional, purposeful, and skillful abridgement of the play, to enable the King's Men to take it on the road with a far smaller complement of actors than would be required to stage the "full version". The reasoning behind this theory is, to me, both interesting ==and persuasive but I am not a specialist. Possibly this theory is known to others here but has been so discredited that it does not warrant mention, but possibly it is not a generally known theory. Would it, in that case, merit mention in the "Texts" section where the bad quarto is discussed? Hi There 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the theory has not been widely accepted. There were also articles - and an edition if I remember - at the height of 90s "postmodernism" when it was being declared that different versions were all "equally valid" and that therefore it was bad to say it was bad. The theory may warrant a mention. Paul B 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added a few lines about this "road version" theory; let me know what you think of it and make any changes you deem necessary please. Hi There 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Assassinations assassin

I thought "Assassinations in fiction" was really too too peripheral, so deleted it.-- Jrmccall 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet In Music was deleted: reinstate?

Maybe it should be moved to its own page, but surely not deleted! Jrmccall 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamlet in cinema and TV

I removed the detailed content from this section, after placing it (if it was not already there) in Shakespeare on screen (Hamlet). I retained the section name and a small leader, in case links to it exist. — Jrmccall 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

References to Hamlet in popular culture

This subsection is big, getting bigger, and singularly unilluminating about the play "Hamlet". Shouldn't it have a page of its own? Any suggestions as to what to call it? I'm going to move it in a few days if there are no objections. — Jrmccall 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I mentioned the idea some time ago, and I'm definitely in favour in principle. However before doing anything hasty, can I suggest that you join this discussion, since User:Durova seems to have some ideas on this issue. AndyJones 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's interesting -- and daunting! — Jrmccall 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• These "references in pop culture" sections seem to find their way into every Wikipedia article, and almost invariably degenerate into pointless collections of cruft. If such information belongs in Wikipedia at all, then I agree it should be given an entry separate from the main article, since it usually adds nothing to understanding of the subject. Perodicticus 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is a guideline about this at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Having said that, most Shakespeare-related articles have this stuff, and one thing that can be said in their favour is that they give kids something at Wikipedia they can work on. AndyJones 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning?

I've just removed this from the intro:

Lines and phrases from the play have passed into the popular consciousness, and in fact, the introductory phrase "To be or not to be" of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act III, scene i has become identified with it.

It doesn't seem to mean anything. Can anyone elucidate? AndyJones 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it means that the play is epitomised by the phrase "To be or not to be" in the popular imagination. I'd say "alas poor Yorick" is at least as likely to used in the same way. Still, TBONTB does in a sense epitomise the play, and has been used as the title of two films. Paul B 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Current State Of The Article, 02 Nov 2006

The article, which was pretty good the last time I looked at it, is now garbage. The "Texts" section reads as though it was written by a very self-absorbed junior high school student with pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style. I will considering nominating this as an Article for Deletion, with the hope that it will be replaced by something rather more encyclopedic. Hi There 10:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is not the way to deal with these issues. The Texts section isn't terribly encyclopedic, but beyond that I don't see how the article is garbage. Why don't you edit the section and make it better? That's the general way to make articles better in wikipedia, not deleting them and starting over. You could even delete all the current text from the section and write your own version of it. john k 13:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. An AfD would obviously be speedy closed, and anyone who nominated it would be immediately labelled as a vandal, so there's no point whatsoever. As for the recent changes to "texts", I think they may be a bit long (which can be dealt with by splitting out, if necessary) but there is good information here, and a decent level of sourcing, and if it is to be labelled "unencyclopedic" then in my view it can only be the writing style that is an issue. Personally I admire what User:Jrmccall has done here. I've invited him to join this conversation to see if he has any comments. I'm sure we can all agree that comments like "pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style" are in no way helpful, and they are not permitted here under our no personal attacks policy. AndyJones 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well gee Andy, I have just read he "No Personal Attacks" WP policy page and perhaps you will be so good as to explain to me exactly how my criticism of the "pretensions to literary insight and a VERY saccharine and overly precious writing style" of the Texts section is a "personal attack" because it certainly isn't apparent in light of the WP policy as expressed on the page you cite. I would also be interested in seeing your reasoning behind the idea that putting an AfD tag here would be "vandalism". Hi There 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Both answers are obvious beyond belief. I am not debating this with you. AndyJones 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(Let me just jump in here...)Wow, it's bracing to be attacked like that -- for my writing style, yet! Perhaps it was high-handed to replace the original "Texts" section (and rename it, too), but I had my reasons (which may to you seem much unsinewed):

• "Texts" emphasises the source(s) rather than the product. I was following such chapter headings in scholarly editions as "An account of the text" in changing it to "Text".
• The original had no proper citations.
• The original focused too much on Q1, whose contribution to what we might call the Canonical text is miniscule.
• While not wanting to get into tedious technicalities, I wanted to introduce some examples of passages the Folio Party (as I called them here) felt that Shakespeare had marked for deletion, and why.
• And finally, "Be bold!" says Jimbo Wales.

It's true that I myself made assertions that I did not cite authority for, as in judging the two example passages as much-loved, and their excision painful. A stylistic lapse from the "encyclopdic", perhaps, but I thought the literary equivalent of "the sun rises in the east" as being beyond dispute. (It just occurs to me now that someone might take that as a Point of View. It isn't, since -- truth to tell -- I am (albeit as bystander) more-or-less of the Folio Party.)

Having said all that, let me admit, as I look over what I wrote, that it could be rather easily improved. I did not explain at all well the difference between the two textual approaches ("all-in" and "Folio priority") at all well. Theobold probably figured out that Shakespeare wanted some of those passages from Q2 gone that he included, but his view was that all of Shakespeare's words were precious. The opposing view is the usual one in literary editors these days -- that an author's final say is the one we should respect. I remain agnostic. Jrmccall 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my hope that all editors to Shakespearean articles should be respectful and sensitive to contributions. These articles are wanting because they often fall prey to editors with good intentions but with poor textual and critical knowledge. Also, Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes, we should not try to mimic that study-guide.

Also, the "Be Bold!" exhortion has been abused so often. Be Bold - only when you know what you are doing.

Also, the tone of certain passages is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dover Wilson's defense of the is called "heroic". But heroic is a very POV word which obviously favors Wilson's opinion. Other examples:

Of course, a playing text will be cut anyway. But to take these and other passages that have become traditional away from the standard reading version of Hamlet is troubling, even if they don't go away entirely, but get relegated to footnotes. It could be that scholars and players will diverge — as they have in the past — and the play that is acted will tend to have what is loved and expected, whatever current academic opinion has to say about some of it.

Bad as the Bad Quarto is, it does however give us, as through a glass darkly, a glimpse of how Hamlet was mounted in Shakespeare's day.

Shakespearean criticism and study has a long history. Frankly, I think unless you have a university degree (at least a Bachelor's), you should not tackle Shakespearean writing. College will give you some idea of how difficult the task is. There are huge voluminous periodicals and editions which you must skim through, and also very importantly, one must be at least impartial (and sounds like it) when one writes an encyclopedic article.

Mandel 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Text" section

I've taken a stab at revising the "Text" section of the Hamlet entry, in line with previous criticisms. See what you think.Ugajin 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. It's well written, well sourced, encyclopedic in tone, NPOV. I may make a few minor tweaks for clarity but I'm pretty happy with it. AndyJones 13:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Beats mine. It especially got rid of that point of view stuff I rather carelessly put in. (I did modify one of your citations, tho, to put it in the form of the others.) — Jrmccall 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

bla bla bla bla

Added infobox

Any feelings on the infobox that I added? Remember 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers!

There. Now that I've spoiled Hamlet for you guys, can we please get rid of the ridiculous spoiler warnings? TomorrowTime 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but spoiler warnings are accepted on Wikipedia, and spoiling the play will not reverse that. Hbdragon88 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Time Top Ten

Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" isn't really correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.128.6 (talk • contribs)

• You are correct. I have removed it. AndyJones 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Befuddling Introduction

I was displeased to find that the first lines in Wikipedia's entry for Hamlet are as follows:

"Hamlet is a comedy by Rachael Lampa, and is one of his boring and pointless plays. Evidence suggests that it was complete and being performed by 2007, but had some topical references added (which still didn't survive) the following year.[1] Hamlet is probably the most annoying of Shakespeare's plays, judging by the number of essays kids complain about today; for example, topping the list at the Royal Shakespeare since 1879."

This information is factually incorrect, biased, and grammatically unsound. I am not savvy with wikipedia and am unsure as to how I could edit this section. I suggest that it be changed as soon as possible, although its inaccuracy could be easily discerned by any who came upon it. Thank you. Graygloaming 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Gray. Although many would think that its inaccuracy could be easily discerned by any who came upon it, I have to admit it had me fooled. Thanks again. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in error the numerous times it refers to a character in Italic textHamletItalic text by the name Claudius. There is no character in this play named Claudius. To say that a character in a play has a particular name means, at a minimum, that at least once in the dialogue of the play the character is called by, or referred to by, that name; this is not the case with any character in this play and the name Claudius.Vidabad 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, Vid. That Wilfred Shakespeare, eh? Him and his plays. OK, so the text practically starts with the words

"DRAMATIS PERSONAE"

"CLAUDIUS, King of Denmark."

.... and everyone and his brother knows the usurping, sister-in-law-marrying old dog's name is 'Claudius'. But is he actually mentioned by name anywhere in the play? No! He's not! That could be because he's the King, of course. I mean, you don't go up to him and say "Hi, Claud! What's hanging, dude?" ...... do you? That would be disrespectful. And quite possibly dangerous. I don't know why, but I'm reminded of the Fast Show sketch - "I love being King, me. It's the best job in the world !". Still, I like the way you went through the King Claudius article and replaced every incidence of King Claudius with The King. That's dedication, that. Though I'm disappointed you didn't rename the article itself; to The King, for instance. You did it here, too, but it was all reverted. Meh! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Literary Criticism

Literary criticism on Hamlet is pretty scarce on wikipedia right now, compared to the stuff that is out there. I think there should be a section in this article on it with a link to a larger article: Hamlet literary criticism. Also, the trivia section could easily be converted into a Hamlet in Film and Theatre section listing depictions of Hamlet on the stage (this could be an article in itself as well, for all that is said about it). Wrad 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I sometimes think the best way to test out suggestions like this is just to be bold and see how it looks. If you want to start a lit-crit page, I'd suggest starting it off as a section on this page, then give it a page of its own if-and-when it gets big enough. Just so you know, until a few months ago this page had a section on Hamlet films, and a user (probably rightly) merged it to the relevant section of Shakespeare on screen.

Yeah, I agree with you. Sometimes I'm just lazy and have other projects to work on, so I just post it on the talk if I have an idea. I'm sure you know what I mean. Thanks for the screen link. Wrad 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare Wikiproject

I just proposed a Shakespeare Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Shakespeare I doubt anyone is going to object to a seperate project, but I'm not going to be able to make it right away. I'm not going to be able to go to all of the pages announcing this, but since the debate here made me realize its necessity I thought I'd mention it here.

I'm in. I just posted your link on the Elizabethan theatre wikiproject talk page, as well. Wrad 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An editorial complaint

I recently added an external link to my website (thehamletenitgma.com), yet someone keeps removing it. The website presents a potentially ground-breaking discovery, which is supported with statistically irrefutable evidence, yet it is being censored here and I would appreciate to have the reason for this. It is true that my hypothesis is not widely accepted or for that matter contested, but that is because it has remained unknown until now. That is why I have turned to this article in wikipedia as a forum in order to publicize (in a discreet and relevant way) what I believe to be a great discovery in literary theory, in hope of generating constructive feedback. I can understand the necessity for strict editorial standards and appreciate the great quality of (and the work that went into creating) this article, yet I do not think wikipedia was created to censor unorthodox ideas, but on the contrary to give people a medium to express them.

Your ideas might be quite interesting, and you might have created the next big break in Hamlet literary critism -- but it is not currently appropriate for wikipedia, even as a link. Since you might not know how to look at your ip addresses talk page User talk:162.129.251.22 this is why your link has been removed. Curtangel 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters in infobox

Hamlet
Written by	William Shakespeare
Characters	Prince Hamlet • Claudius • Gertrude • Ophelia • Polonius • Laertes • Ghost • Horatio • Other minor characters
Original language	English
Genre	Tragedy
Setting	Elsinore, Denmark

I put the characters back in the infobox. The infobox was looking pretty skimpy. In response to whether it is redundant to the character section, I disagree. Most play infoboxes have a list of characters, so should Hamlet's. If people want more information on a character, they can go to the Character section of the article. If we are against redundancy, we should delete the entire infobox, as it gives setting, author, title, and other information already contained in the article. The purpose of the infobox is to provide a convenient fact box "summarizing" the article. So I think we should keep at least these main characters. Wrad 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First, Wikipedia discourages lists in general. With your edit, now we would have 2 lists of the same info. 2nd - who is to decide who is a "main" character and who is not? (and can you imagine listing ALL the characters in Shakespeare's plays?) Third, info boxes are not mandatory. Fourth,would not a true "summary" of Hamlet focus on the play itself - themes, morals, etc.? Finally, when all the info in the box is in the first few paragraphs of the article, what is the point. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an article in USA TODAY, or as it is often called "McPaper". Frankly, I think we should lose the info boxes completely. They do a disservice to the importance of the work. And from a graphic standpoint, they are ugly with a capital UG!Smatprt 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is to have an appealing layout of the basic facts of the article for easy access. This is not a list, but it allows people to see important information without digging into the article. Literally thousands if not millions of wikiarticles use it, so clearly many, if not most wikiusers find them not only useful, but visually appealing. I'm not usually one to decide things based on popular opinion, but obviously the consensus is that infoboxes are quite encyclopedic (not lists). I have never until now heard anyone complain about them.

Also, I think it's easy to decide on main characters. If you don't agree with one, post it. I think my choices are quite sensible.

Based on this, I'm going to put them back. Please keep the layout of other, similar articles in mind before changing it back. I invite you to look at any notable article about a movie (Disturbia) or TV program (American Idol) or book (The Brothers Karamazov) as examples of how short and unintrusive our infobox actually is, even with the characters listed. Wrad 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well heaven forbid someone actually might have to READ the article to get information instead of using the CliffNotes supplied by info boxes. I think you are succeeding in dumbing down the article by insisting on using them for plays. Also R & G main characters? In their own play, maybe, but not a casting director I know feels that they are main characters in Hamlet - no more than Osric. Since the box was only recently added, I think it should be deleted completely. Before adding it back in, I would love to hear what others think about infoboxes for plays - esp those of Shakespeare (most of which, by the way do NOT have infoboxes at all - thank the lord.) P.S. I looked at your examples and they do not convince me. The longer the info box, the worse it looks. How about movies with 32 producers (more and more common), or hundreds of characters? And again, how can you (or anyone) decide who is a main character in a play - that would depend on each and every directors own vision. Smatprt 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "main character or not" is the issue. It never says that those listed are main characters. It just says that there are "other minor characters." That can be taken to mean that some of those listed may be considered "minor," but there are others. Wrad 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, then, what we would have is a list of characters, some major, some minor, with no rhyme nor reason? I think that only makes it worse. In a related subject we recently had a discussion on the Shakespeare page because an editor wanted to list those who "influenced" or were "influenced by" Shakespeare. While possibly appropriate for other authors, when it came to The Man himself, we quickly gained consensus that those lists would be waaaaaaay tooooo long, or would have to be choosey (controversial); and the info was repetitive within the article itself. I see similiar problems here.Smatprt 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation on my watchlist... In general, I don't have a problem with infoboxes. Sometimes I need information, quick short and to the point. In this particular case... well, Hamlet is a strong part of culture in the English speaking world... I'd think the average English speaker would not need an infobox to direct him to the information he needs on Hamlet. Without the character list, the infobox such as it is... is essentially useless. And I think the average person visiting this page would know those characters without seeing it in an infobox. I appreciate the gesture of putting the infobox there... but it just doesn't look right. Most people who are visiting the Hamlet page would be looking for more information than the average infobox provides. I can live with it if others like it, but I tend towards taking it out. If we must have it we should have the character list (though in this case, I'd recommend we reach a consensus as to who would be on it, and commenting the infobox so people wouldn't constantly be adding characters we agreed shouldn't be there). Curtangel 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my feeling, to a point. The infobox is pretty lame without characters. That's why I put them back. Usually, infoboxes also have a 200px image as well. Infoboxes, as you said, are very useful in many cases. I believe this is one of them. While most people who edit this page are familiar with the information in the infobox, I believe it is unfair to say that the average reader would be. For example, how many average people know that Hamlet is based in Denmark, or exactly what year it was published, or that it is set in Elsinore Castle, specifically?

I think that the answer is an improvement of the infobox, not a deletion of it. I believe it will be very useful to the average reader. I am impressed with the work that many editors who are experts have done on this article. I'm just concerned that we may forget the average reader. Some may see this infobox as dumbing down the article, as Smatprt (who seems to have quite a knowledge of Shakespeare) said, but sometimes what an expert sees as dumbing down, another sees as simplification and clarification for the novice.

Now as to the rhyme and reason for my choice of listed characters, here is how I did it. I listed the characters who have speaking parts in more than one scene which are larger than a few lines. This seemed quite objective and fair to me. If I missed something, please point it out. One last thing, please, since this infobox is not for experts who already know the play, please don't get too nit-picky about it. It's just a simple box for important facts and easy reference for new readers.

Thank you for cutting in. We both really needed a siphon or shunt to release some of the pressure between us. Wrad 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a sample of what a full-fledged infobox for this article may look like to the side of this discussion. Wrad 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think that looks fine... perhaps you're right. I might know too much about the play to objectively guess at what the "average reader" would know and not. Curtangel 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

smatprt here - no I'm not an expert in Shakespeare, but I do have an extensive background in the theatre, which I believe was my reference to Wrad. From a theatrical standpoint, counting lines and appearances is not how an important character is ultimately determined. Sure it helps with the obvious gigantic characters, but often a character with few lines can still have an enormous impact on an audience. And vice versa.

And that is what we have to remember here, I think - is that these are plays written for performance. Not novels, not tv or movies, but for the theatre - "live" on stage as we say. From that standpoint I agree with Curtangel that most people who are looking up a specific play by Shakespeare are going to be looking for alot more than the main characters, who the average layperson does indeed know (and I would add that if they are not they are being ill served by an info box that has no hope of explaining the complexity of the greatest writer in the English language).

Regarding characters in Shakespeare, one production's fool is another productions tragic hero - that is the magic of theatre and the huge difference a visionary director and creative performers can have on any given production. Because of this - the spontaneous living discovery in every theatrical production, any attempt at rating characters can never be successful. And who is to say what is the correct intrepretation of any given role in Shakespeare? That is why I come back to the point that the info boxes are actually harmful in the case of Shakespeare's plays. They don't fit. He was bigger than that.Smatprt 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still greatly support leaving them out (the great majority of Shakespeare plays do not have info boxes). That should be a clue here - has anyone ever really asked for them? Smatprt 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started this conversation at [[2]] as it affects several pages. One responder who said this: Another problem is often that if the cast gets very complicated (something like Lost (TV series) for instance), the infobox can simply not do it justice. It is common to link to a "page section" that lists the information in a proper way in that case, but many people simply don't understand that." Shall we continue it there?Smatprt 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply disagree. I don't see how my choice of characters is faulty. They are not intended, again, to represent main characters, just an overview of characters based on the above criteria. I am asking for an infobox now. Somebody else, besides me, put one in this page (with characters on it). I think we should count as much as any wikipedian. Somebody created a infobox template for plays (with characters) (see Template:Infobox Play). I really don't know what else to say. We just don't agree at all. We've said just about everything that can be said. It really doesn't hurt anything. Can we please just put it up? Why is this even a big issue? Wrad 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started this conversation at [[3]] as it affects several pages. One responder who said this: Another problem is often that if the cast gets very complicated (something like Lost (TV series) for instance), the infobox can simply not do it justice. It is common to link to a "page section" that lists the information in a proper way in that case, but many people simply don't understand that." Shall we continue it there?Smatprt 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a desire to talk about the big picture right now, just this article. I don't think the problem mentioned applies here. The character list takes up a miniscule amount of lines. The only thing it takes up is the blank space to the right of the Table of Contents. Also, lost is a show that not only has a much longer plot, but multiple plot lines involving several main characters. This is different. Hamlet sees his dad's ghost, struggles to get revenge, everybody dies in the end. 5 acts. Two or three hours of showtime tops. Let's just use the infobox. It isn't complicated. It doesn't hurt anything. It's important information. It's concise. It looks good. It's an infobox as it was meant to be. I'll even take out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to make it more concise. Wrad 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can really see both of the points of view on this issue. Both arguments make sense to me.... I wouldn't have a problem with having an infobox like Wrad has up there, but at the same time, how necessary is it really? Should we consider the fact that Shakespeare's other plays don't have an infobox as silent consensus? I didn't write anything for a while because I could see both views and I wonder if there's anyone else watching this on their watchlist who feels the same. I think you are both trying to do what's best for the article. The more I think about it the more I think consistency between the articles about Shakespeare's plays is an important consideration. At the same time, we shouldn't just go willy-nilly adding infoboxes to all of Shakespeare's plays. Maybe there needs to be a more central discussion forum where these issues can be decided across the board for articles related to Shakespeare and his plays. I know there is a Shakespeare portal, but is there an organized Shakepeare Wikiproject? Or am I just going way off on some weird tangent here? Curtangel 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... apparentally a lot of conversation went on while I was writing... I was responding to everything pre-village pump discussion. Then I guess the conversation closed here for the moment. Curtangel 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Shakespeare project, although I think there should be. Ironically, one of the first things many wikiprojects do is develop infoboxes for their subject, identify the articles that need them, and place them accordingly (See [4] for a list of articles requesting infoboxes).

Romeo and Juliet had an infobox last I checked, as does The Tempest. If it looks good here and there, why not add it elsewhere? Maybe it was a "silent consensus" or maybe it just wasn't ever thought of. Also, how can there be consensus where there is no conformity? Wrad 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they weren't thought of because they are not needed. Out of some 40+ shakespeare plays and poems there are only 3 info boxes - all fairly new. The majority of the other articles have frontipiece graphics from the play quartos themselves - or classic paintings. From a graphic layout standpoint, I find these images much more appealling. Particularly the quarto frontipiece graphics, which convey much more actual information that the info boxes. They grab the attention of the reader much more than info boxes. By the way, info boxes are not in any way mandatory. The question is - are they really needed. As I have demonstrated, they can do more harm than good, so why have them? Everything that is in them is in the articles, but in the context that Shakespeare truly requires.Smatprt 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Infobox templates aren't exactly easy to make. That could easily explain the delay, but this conversation is irrelevant, I think. We are all just speculating. The fact is, we don't know why there aren't more. We have differing opinions. Sure infoboxes can do more harm than good. My opinion is this one does more good than harm. Also, the images you mentioned can easily and harmlessly be worked into infoboxes, as the photo in the one in the discussion is. Wrad 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the images that are so small in the info boxes that they are either unreadable or do not do justice to the image. Below is a readable quarto frontipiece. It could be a bit smaller, but not much to it justice as a resource. Also to credit the image in the infobox is also problematic. The Hamlet image above, for example - whose work, when, etc? It's not there and it would be confusing if it was, but nonetheless, info on images such as these is quite important. It's not as easy as posting a picture of a person or place or thing with an info box. Smatprt 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In this layout, the graphic usually balances the intro paragraph as well as the table of contents.

The third quarto of Hamlet (1605); a straight reprint of the 2nd quarto (1604)

Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, one of his best-known works and the most-quoted play in the English language. Evidence suggests that it was complete and being performed by 1600, but had some topical references added (which still survive) the following year.Hamlet is considered by many to be Shakespeares first real piece that shed some light on his dedication to the Queen of England, Elizabeth. Hamlet is one of the most popular of Shakespeare's plays, judging by the number of productions; for example, topping the list at the Royal Shakespeare since 1879. The plot contains elements of revenge tragedy, fratricide, murder, existentialist self-questioning and supernatural intervention. With 4,042 lines and 29,551 words, Hamlet is also the longest Shakespearean play.

table

of

contents

usually

here

File:Henry Fuseli- Hamlet and his father's Ghost.JPG

Marcellus, Horatio, Hamlet, and the Ghost by Henry Fuseli.

One other thought - the graphic used above us so much more stunning if enlarged some.Smatprt 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the change in the infobox up top. Do we have photos like this for every play? Wrad 03:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did look. As you can see, it's unreadable and still uncredited. The quartos and folios tell quite a story themselves and need to be explained when shown. And the overlong infobox would upstage (no pun intended) the article itself. In my opinion.Smatprt 03:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm. I don't know. I consider that quite debatable. Does that surprise you at all? Wrad 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No suurprise, but that's cool. Which do you consider debatable? Readability of the graphic? The importance of creditting/providing context for the quarto graphic? Or that the info box would upstage the article?.......or just everything I say (kidding!)Smatprt 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you have a look here [[5]] to see what I mean??? Visually, I think this is stronger (and hisorically informative)Smatprt 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a hypothetical: I'm a standard Wikipedia user, but not an editor, except every once in a while. I'm looking at random stuff. I click on a wikilink that takes me to Hamlet. I honestly don't know much about the play. I think maybe Shakespeare wrote it, To be or not, that kind of stuff. How does this picture help me understand what this article is about? I don't know anything about quartos. I just want to know basic stuff to start with, in order to know if I want to dig deeper. This picture and caption, though aesthetically pleasing, may be more intimidating than inviting in these cases.

To put it in another perspective. Look at the Dominik Hašek page. What if, instead of an infobox, this article had only a picture? Would you know what was going on? The infobox, I think, is very handy in that it fills the space to the right of the ToC with important information on the subject. Wrad 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I happy to finally say that I agree with you! For rock stars, athletes - personalities where photos actually exist - photos are great as well as vital stats in a box. But for certain pieces of literature, original creative art, these plays, that are also saddled with numerous characters, locations, intrepretations, controversies - I still see it as unworkable and ultimately, harmful.

Example - We don't even know when any of the plays were written - we've narrowed it down to years or decades (depending on which scholars you listen to. Look at The Tempest, for example, and the varying dates and sources that are proposed. Thoughtfully, I can see know way to include even that information. This is an additional problem with Shakespeare's plays - and those 4500 linking pages - There are so many conflicting theory's behind the plays. From dates to influences, even to locations (Is the Tempest on a caribbean island or in the meditereanean?), there is great debate.

Regarding your hypothetical, before I answer, and I will, do you truly believe that your scenario is an example of the majority use of the page by Wiki's primary users, including students and researchers?Smatprt 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider that answer to be an easy yes. I don't think serious students and researchers normally go to wikipedia for serious information. They don't trust it yet. Also, I don't think it would be too hard to give info on The Tempest, Just say it is on an unknown Island. Infoboxes don't have to say everything! Wrad 05:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I did not say "serious" students (graduate students, etc.). I was refering to middle school and high school students who, judging from the amount of vandalism they do, are obviously a huge presense on the Shakespeare pages. Having a daughter and several nephews I also know that they use Wikipedia as a source on a regular basis.

• • Regarding the hypothetical you pose, I simply can't believe that a majority, or even signeificant, amount of users are simply going to happen upon the Hamlet page. Nor, for the few that may, have you made clear how an info box would help them any better than simply reading the first paragraph or two.

• • also - re the hypothetical - to answer your posed question of just wanting "to know basic stuff to start with, in order to know if I want to dig deeper", this answer is the easiest of all. Since this is, after all, an encyclopedia, the best and most appropriate way to "know the basic stuff" is to read a strong, well developed opening paragraph. In fact, in articles like this, the opening paragraph is all important. The graphic should always be relevant within the first 1 or 2 paragraphs. Then as the article develops, other graphics should be introduced to break up the verbiage, as well as support the content. In my opinion.Smatprt 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. When this all started you said you wanted them out because they are ugly. That is an opinion, of course, which many would disagree with, but how does any of this recent stuff relate to what started the whole thing? It seems that now you don't see the infobox as harmful at all, just replaceable.

I, personally, stumble across articles all the time. Maybe that's why I want an infobox so bad. I use them! A lot! Wrad 22:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm getting tired of arguing about this. Why don't we leave this alone for three days, and see if anyone else responds. This will give us some time to "sharpen the saw" as well as gather feedback. Wrad 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have posed a number of questions, asked for a few specifics, but I just don't feel the dialogue between the two o f us is serving any useful purpose. I appreciate the true interplay provided by KurtAngel and those on the Wiki Pump. From my standpoint:

• We have 40+ Shakepeare plays and poems that have pages. Of these, three have infoboxes. The rest conform to either a Quarto pix or a classic painting. In reviewing these discussions and those on the Pump, there is no concensus that the info boxes are helpful in this case.
• We have, for example, the Hamlet info box with the following information: Hamlet. It's by Shakespeare.. It was written in England..in English. It's a tragedy. I will not believe that on an English website you or anyone needs this information. It's a no brainer.
• Aside from characters (which other editors feel are problematic too), what else can we put in the box? Date written? nope. Date first performed? nope. Originator of the role? nope. First director or producer? hardly.

When I look at these points, I can only conclude that the info box is not helpful for Hamlet. I imagine the R&J and Tempest would have similar answers. I think that until a concensus is reached that info boxes are appropriate for the plays of Shakespeare, that we should leave them out.Smatprt 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my view on the subject:

• Since a consensus was never reached on Shakespeare infoboxes, that the fact that other Shakespeare pages have no infobox is hardly an example of why they aren't needed here.

• • the info boxes - and their potential expansion - are relatively new additions to the 3 pages that are at issue here. Obviously, they are contentious and until some concensus is reached they should be removed.Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I believe they are useful for information, as well as navigation, to the average wikiuser, providing an overview for those less familiar with the topic.
  • as I have demonstrated, they provide nothing new, are imprecise, reflect POV. I also find it POV for you to represent the average user. Do you have data to support this?Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Plenty of useful information can be put in a Hamlet infobox, as is shown at the top of this talk section. (Author, setting, characters, date of writing, language of origin, theater originally performed in (Globe Theater) and what have you.)
  • everything shown above except the characters is obvious in the opening paragraphs. You are also mistaken in 2 of your 6 examples: no one knows the date of writing and no one knows the theatre of origin. Please do your homework to avoid these errors.Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• This information is not familiar to most people. (Just go out on the street and ask someone randomly what they know about Hamlet. You might get some funny answers.)
  • You have appraently not read my post about the importance of the opening paragraph. This is an enclopedia, not a pictionary.Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The pictures posted to the right of the introductory paragraph of most of Shakespeare's pages can be easily included in an infobox, as in the one on top.

• • you apparently have not read my posting about the importance of size in graphic representation. Avoiding unreadable graphics and poorly chosen paintings are, as you say, "no brainers"Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So there you go. Wrad 22:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, at the beginning of this discussion you got very defensive about your edits and proceeded to preach wiki policy. Since then I have attempted to engage you with honest debate. Unfortunately, you have ignored by points, and engaged in a tit for tat converation with a "So there" finale. I think you were right in suggesting a 3 day break for yourself, because you are acting like you own the page. I believe you should look at the page on owning an article and reflect on your own conduct instead of simply trying to one-up one editor (myself), who honestly criticized one of your edits. Others have made valid points that you are also ignoring. You are the only editor actively defending these boxes. I'm sorry, but this behaviour has only undermined your credibility. Smatprt 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just thought we were making closing statements. It only seemed fair that we both get to do so, so I summed mine up. Please calm down. I meant no harm. Wrad 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I see that you have changed the page to what you want. Neither of us want an edit war, here. You're acting on emotion, just calm down. You have misinterpreted what I did, and I'm sorry. I was just trying to give my closing statement as you did. Please, please, don't act on strong emotion here. It will only make things worse. Wrad 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that you are very upset, so it is no use talking at all right now. I will see you in three days. Wrad 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just popped in from the RFI page, since I was an English major and took a year of Shakespeare. I like the infobox with the characters in it. The page is rather drab now, IMHO. I don't see any damage from the box and I do see some usability. I am sure, in my rather long life, that I have struggled to recall the name of a character in Hamlet, and it would be a godsend to have the information so succinctly presented. I confess to some mental bug; I always get Laertes' and Polonius' names confused. Also, I would include Rosencrantz & Guildenstern in the box.

I have a couple of other suggestions. The introductory paragraph is a bit too hesitant and scholarly. Most of all, the formatting forms a really unattractive square arch with an empty center at the top of the page.

Well now you've done it. I just saw my afternoon disapper. I'm not getting involved any further except possibly clean up the appearance a bit. I hope nobody minds if I put something a little more colorful than a quarto cover at the top. Apollo 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone requested a third opinion. For what it's worth, here's mine. The article does not cry out for an info box. Western civilization will not collapse if one is included, but the one shown strikes me as silly. I'd like to see a plot intro in the first paragraph, something like "The play is about the moral dilemma faced by only son of the late King of Denmark whose uncle has taken the throne and married his mother." Compare with the intro to Romeo and Juliet. Otherwise, I think all the info anyone would want is easily found in the article.--agr 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox discussion opinion by the guy who added it

Hamlet
The third quarto of Hamlet (1605); a straight reprint of the 2nd quarto (1604)
Written by	William Shakespeare
Characters	Hamlet Claudius Gertrude Ghost of Hamlet's father Polonius Laertes Ophelia Reynaldo Horatio Marcellus Barnardo Francisco Voltemand Cornelius Rosencrantz Guildenstern Fortinbras
Original language	English
Genre	Tragedy
Setting	Elsinore, Denmark

Wow, I asked if anybody has any thoughts on the infobox I added in December of 2006 (Talk:Hamlet#Added infobox) and nobody ever replied. I heard nothing about this and went away and then suddenly on April 19 this became very contentious. Well, here is my two-cents. I added the infobox to this article hoping it would catch on to the other play-related articles. Currently the template is being used on about 60+ articles on plays (see here).

I generally find infoboxes to be very useful, and I think this is no exception. I still support the use of an infobox on this page (even after reading all of the objections above) and I would like to see the infobox restored (but I don't want to get into an edit war over this). I welcome the opportunity to discuss whether infobox should belong on play articles at all, but I think the discussion should go on at the template infobox talk page (Template talk:Infobox Play) or on the wikiproject theater talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre) so that we can come to a uniform understanding of this issue with all of the interested participants. Other thoughts? Remember 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As everybody already knows. I'm a fan of infoboxes. I think we all (including myself) got a little too into our little debate. I hesitate to re-enter the discussion and dig up old wounds. I would like to let others decide this, if at all possible. Wrad 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a mirror discussion going on at [6] regarding infoboxes and when they are appropriate and when they are not. The growing consensus there seems to be that for many fact-based subjects, info boxes are useful indeed. However, when it comes to the arts, they are problematic. Maybe we should attempt to conclude the conversation there.Smatprt 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think this conversation is pretty important and needs to be had in some place where everyone will be able to find it. Others that try to add infoboxes for Shakespeare plays would never be able to find this consensus if it was just on a past Village pump discussion. Therefore, I would rather move the dicussion to Template talk:Infobox Play) or on the wikiproject theater talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre Remember 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Remember. This topic is too focused to be discussed at the pump (although their insight could be a help) and too broad to be discussed here. We want to know what is and isn't appropriate in play infoboxes, specifically, so that plays are relatively uniform in representation throughout wikipedia. I also think that during the discussion, concrete examples of good and bad infoboxes should be used, to make it clear what the standard is. To the side is an example of what I think is a very very poor infobox, in comparison to the one at the top. This is also what I think the village pump page is talking about when they say "white space" and "too many characters" or "cast" as they put it, as they are focusing on television. Let's move this discussion to the most logical place possible:, and invite all related wikiprojects to it. Wrad 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - the more input on this the merrier. That is why I placed the conversation at the Village Pump (at suggestion of another editor). Have sinced moved the conversation to Template talk:Infobox Play as suggested by Wrad and Remember.Smatprt 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, works for me: anywhere that the discussion is centralised is good.

AndyJones 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)