Talk:Hamlet/Archive 3

message: Here's a part of what may later be part of a section on Catholicism in Hamlet.  Refs are excluded since this is a talk page.
::::
:Those remarks about "Catholic doctrines" are, of course, ignorantly wrong.  In point of fact, Christian burial of suicides was proscribed by the Church of England until the 19th century.  I hope it isn't necessary for me to point out that the Church of England is PROTESTANT, not Catholic.  Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with this.  Since 'Hamlet' is a Top Priority article, it would be nice if those who want to discuss it would do at least a little homework, so as to make intelligent contributions, and avoid spouting obvious ignorance that is not only not helpful, but misleading. JeffJo 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for you to post an example of what you have in mind about Themes. JeffJo 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil. I will take this thread to AN/I if this continues. AndyJones 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you say Demark was Catholic, I thought it was Lutheran. But of course there is no clear "historical" moment when the action of the play is suppossed to be occuring, though most of the cultural references are modern. Also the C of E was not Roman Catholic, but was and is Catholic is the broader usage of the term. It remained theologically orthodox and episcopalian. I would sgugest that the concept of "Catholic" themes in the play is too ambiguous to be included in the way you suggest. Paul B 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Example of a theme

message: I agree with JeffJo...partially, because themes are "fundementall or universal ideas", so how do you decide if an idea is fundamentall or universal? I think we should start a theme summary as a list. We've already   been discussing different themes, so people can add those and we can edit it to filter out the bias. Each item on the list needs to be able to be verified as "fundamental or universall" so themes coming from a reliable source would be optimall, not wholy originall research.
bardofcornish
:Whatever we do. I think somebody needs to just do something rather than just talking about it. It will become clear as things develop.  I've started a page at User:Wrad/Literary Criticism of Hamlet, but I'm not sure how much of it will carry over... Wrad 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another user deleted it, and left a comment saying it didn't have good references. Sparknotes are generally discouraged on these articles in favor of better sources. Wrad 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Conclusion

message: Andy,
you removed a perfectly legitimate link I put on the Hamlet page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklynchster (talk • contribs) 
* I've moved above comment from my talk page. Looks like WP:SPAM to me. Do any other editors have a view? AndyJones 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that website looks pretty spammy.  Too many ads and links to ads.Smatprt 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The plot summary for this article is, quite frankly, terrible. It simultaneously explains too much and not enough and assumes you're already familiar with scenes that you probably aren't familiar with if you're bothering to read the plot summary in the first place. The whole thing ought to be rendered in under 1,000 words, rather than the 1,562 it is now. Further, I see little reason why any reference ought to be made in the plot summary to "famous lines" and "such-and-such soliloquy" and other such nonsense. If these scenes/lines have their own articles, they ought to be linked to via a parenthetical link, but that's it. I mean, I'd hardly expect a plot summary of The Matrix to say something like, "And then Neo and Trinity walked into the lobby of the building and the famous Lobby Shoot-Out Scene began." It sounds bad and does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of the plot which is, after all, exactly what the plot summary is supposed to do. RobertM525 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. We could revert to the old version. It might be a good start. Wrad 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: JeffJo, please be respectful and watch your tone. Everyone wants this article to be good, otherwise they wouldn't bother coming here and discussing it. I also happen to be of the opinion that our synopsis is much too long, myself. Ideally, it should be around 600 words, maybe with a max of about 900.  We're way over that. Surely we can make it more concise. Wrad 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrad, please be respectful and watch your tone more carefully.  The Wikipedia rules do not permit you to use the discussion area to pick personal fights with other people.  I would not like to have to report you for unruly behavior.  Simply discuss the subject, please, (as I did.)  I did not make any personal remarks, but you just did, in obvious violation of the rules.  Now then, to the actual subject of discussion.  It really is necessary to recognize that 'Hamlet' is Shakespeare's longest play, and a long play by any standards, and it is simply going to have to have a long synopsis, if the synopsis is going to be any good.  There is no way around that.  The original complaint that was made here was quite strange.  It was a complaint that the synopsis provided too much information.  The whole purpose of an encyclopedia - which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be - is to provide the user with factual information.  It is just odd that somebody would complain about that.  And it is ridiculous, as I already pointed out, to complain that the synopsis describes what happens in the play, because, in fact, that is exactly what a synopsis is supposed to do.  A synopsis of a play is an overview of what happens in the play.  But anybody who believes he can describe what happens in 'Hamlet' in only 600 words is certainly welcome to try, of course.  I'd like to see that done, in a way that could be considered respectable in a good encyclopedia article (and I mean that sincerely - I'd like to see it.)  And just by the way, for anybody who wants to know, the plot overview of 'Hamlet' in Microsoft Encarta runs to more than 800 words, and it doesn't even claim to be a proper synopsis. JeffJo 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressing a person individually to encourage politeness is totally fine on talk pages and has nothing to do with tone or personal attacks. It is when you use words that demean others, such as a sarcastic "Gee, no kidding" and "People need to face reality" that are tonally unacceptable. You can report me if you want, but you must keep a cool head when talking on this page if the article is to move forward. I have talked to you about this before. If you want to see policy on tone, take a look at WP:Etiquette. Wrad 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrad, you began your comment with a personal attack against me - which you are now continuing - instead of discussing the subject, which is an obvious violation of the Wikipedia rules by you.  Instead of simply giving lip service to the rules, Wrad, you, yourself, need to go and take a long, careful look at *** WP:Etiquette *** - seriously - and you need to spend some time studying those rules, so that you can conduct yourself properly in the discussion area, and obey the rules.  If you do not cease engaging in behavior that violates the rules, I *WILL* report you (which I probably should already have done, the first time I caught you doing that kind of thing, which was some time ago.)  In point of fact, you did not address me personally to "encourage politeness," you addressed me personally to try to impose your own point of view in the discussion, which is highly dishonest behavior.  You have a devious habit of citing the rules in an attempt to intimidate others and impose your own point of view in discussion.  It is not acceptable that that should continue.  Stop doing it.  Your own "tone" is unacceptable when you devote an entire posting to personally criticizing somebody else, instead of discussing the subject at issue, which is what you just did.  Watch your tone, Wrad. ;-)  Before you get yourself into trouble.  Turning to the actual subject of discussion, do you have anything further to say about the synopsis?  Do you understand that the synopsis is supposed to be a summary of what happens in the play?  And of course, a complaint that a synopsis is a synopsis, which is all the original complaint amounted to, is utterly ridiculous.  If people don't want a synopsis, the thing to do would be simply to remove it.  Are you advocating that the play synopsis should be removed?  Or do you no longer have any interest in the subject of discussion, so that you'd rather just fight with other people? JeffJo 10:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JeffJo -Threatening Wrad with "reporting you" is not helpful.  It would be a more wasted time and ultimately unsuccessful. Reading this talk page, apparently Wrad's biggest fault is asking people to be polite and to dial down the insults and sarcasm. While some editors have thicker skins than others, is asking for civility a bad thing? It's certainly not a personal attack. Instead of engaging in a tit for tat session, why not go back to editing the article, which you obviously care for and have considerable knowledge to contribute? However, Wrad and AndyJones and others are correct - some of what you are proposing is indeed OR. You simply must cite sources on Themes (and everythng else in WP). The comparison to a list of Characters I just don't get.  There is a list of characters printed in the play.  There is no list of themes and as this page has shown, themes are open to debate, whereas a list of characters is not. Oh - and there are many, many sources that cite themes, so that should not be a problem, as the themes you reference are quite common and have been expounded in numerous publications. Smatprt 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I just added a new "Critical history" section in hopes that it will begin a better outline of Hamlet criticism and analysis on this page, as I'm sure everyone wants. Wrad 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you missed my point.  The point is that it is alrady plagiarized from that site.Brandon Christopher 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it isn't. That's JeffJo's personal website. He wrote it, so he can copy it here without violating copyright. The link is actually  Wrad 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's that simple. I've raised the issue here in the hope that someone knowledgeable will be along, shortly. AndyJones 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Consensus still has not been reached on this issue. Is the plot summary too long or does the play merit a longer synopsis? Should analysis and commentary (i.e. "this is a famous scene...") be mixed in with the plot elements, or should it be strictly a plot description with no analysis or commentary? Thoughts?
*I personally believe that the synopsis should be under 700 words, and in an extreme case have a maximum of 900 words. I believe that the plot summary as it stands forces a specific reading of the play on readers by applying commentary. I also believe that an overly long plot section violates WP:PLOT, taking up valuable space in the article which could be better used to summarize the large amount of scholarly analysis of the play. I believe the section should be confined to plot elements only, and should not interject with analysis or commentary, which can be provided in an "Analysis" section instead. Please express your opinions so that we can reach an agreement. Wrad 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot section